Date   

Re: model car weight

Gary Roe
 

Tim,

I agree. I prefer metal wheels for various reasons; but was really
surprised at the findings.

In his rollability testing, Brian used the same box car with the same
trucks, swapping out the wheelsets for the tests. So the only variable was
the wheelsets themselves.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 5:48 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight




Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or
unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)

Then add car weight variability to all that to really confuddle things!

Tim O'Connor

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois


Re: model car weight

Tim O'Connor
 

Gary

A lot of factors influence performance - metal or plastic, sintered or
machined metal, machined brass or machined nickel silver, dirt or oil on
the track, pointed or shoulder journals, fat taper or narrow taper, metal
or abs or delrin sideframes, equalized vs nonequalized, sprung or unsprung...
But all else being equal, my experience is that metal wheels outlast and
outperform plastic wheels by a huge margin in HO scale. If you think about
the physics of wheels on rails, the weight of an N scale car per square
centimeter of rail contact is far less than it is for HO scale cars, so
direct performance comparisons are not meaningful between N and HO scales
(or between HO and O, or O scale and 1:1)

Then add car weight variability to all that to really confuddle things!

Tim O'Connor

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois


Re: model car weight

Gary Roe
 

Pierre,

I agree with Steve on the uniformity being the key. The HO Scale club I
belong to does not weigh to NMRA Specs, rather something a bit lighter, due
to our grades. We very seldom have any trouble due to weight issues.

On a related note, the Jul/Aug issue of N Scale Railroading magazine had an
article about a test performed by Brian Morgan on all the different wheel
sets for N Scale equipment. I expected to see that metal wheelsets rolled
better than plastic ones, and his test bore this out......on new wheels.
Once he had run them for 1000 scale miles (he said he had a lot of time),
the metal wheelsets rollability dropped off quite a bit, while the
Micro-Trains plastic low profile wheelsets hardly dropped off at all.

gary roe
quincy, illinois

_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Steve Lucas
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 4:59 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: model car weight




Pierre--

The semi-scale wheels are still to NMRA RP-25 specs, so their treads still
occupy the same surface area on the rails as Code 110 wheelsets. I think
that what we're seeing is better rolling wheelsets because of the
near-universal use of metal wheelsets by STMFC modellers, and the improved
quality of the needlepoint axle ends on them.

As for car weight, I've read from several sources that opine that
consistency in weight is important, not slavish adherance to NMRA specs.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "Pierre"
<pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling
characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the
suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are
somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Ed--

Thank you. I guess that I can justify exactly ONE ULTX tank car from the HO Atlas ICC-105. One of lot 3748 is most likely, with fifty numbers to choose from. :(

Now to see what other uses there can be for this otherwise nicely-done car!

Thanks again,

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:19 PM, Steve Lucas wrote:

In Hamilton, Ontario, in January, 1991, I took a photo of UTLX 91624,
shown as "BLT 5 71". But a stencil under the car number says "UTC 7
51". Capacity stencilled on the end of the tank is given as "10 987
GAL US". This car seems very similar to the Atlas HO ICC-105 tank car.

This car number shows as part of series 91000 to 93999 in the
January, 1953 ORER.
Steve,
The 91000-series UTLX tank cars were nearly 4' longer than the
equivalent 11,000-gallon ICC 105A cars built by AC&F beginning in 1947.
The tank diameter was correspondingly smaller than on the cars built by
AC&F.

There was a relatively low number of 11,000-gallon 105A tank cars built
by AC&F and sold to the Union Tank Line that could possibly "match" the
Atlas model. Four orders were very small quantities. Given the large
quantities of UTLX cars that were often built in a given order, these
small quantities make no sense to me unless UTLX bought cars that were
originally ordered by someone else and then the orders were cancelled
after the cars were already in production. Perhaps UTLX got a "good
deal" price from AC&F that was too good to pass up. Each of the
following 5 orders were ACF-design cars having 38'-5" long underframes
(measured to end sills).

96263-96272, 10 cars, lot 3169, 2-48
96291-96297, 7 cars, lot 3225, 7-48
99273-99274, 2 cars, lot 3384, 11-48
96275-96276, 2 cars, lot 3356, 11-48
96412-96461, 50 cars, lot 3748, 6-52

Incidentally, the lot 3748 order was the final UTLX order from AC&F
during the 1950s. Subsequent UTLX tank cars built during the 1950s were
by by the company at their own shops.

In 1947-1949 UTLX received 2,400 cars built by AC&F to UTLX design with
underframe length of 42'-3" between end sills.

92000-93199, 1,200 cars, lot 3263, 5-48
93800-93999, 200 cars, lot 3263B, ca. 1949
98195-98899, 705 cars, lot 3085, 5-47
99223-99322, 100 cars, lot 3263A, ca. 1948 or 1949
99400-99499, 100 cars, lot 3103, 7-47
99905-99999, 95 cars, lot 3085, 5-47

A photo from the Charles Winters collection of UTLX 94751 shows an
11,000-gallon, ICC 105A300W, 42'-3"-long, propane car built 9-54 and
lettered for Anchorgas. The car displays similar graphics to the Atlas
model of URTX 94614 shown on their web site. However, the Atlas model
is a bogus representation of the prototype UTLX-design cars of this
type. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

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


Re: model car weight

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Pierre--

The semi-scale wheels are still to NMRA RP-25 specs, so their treads still occupy the same surface area on the rails as Code 110 wheelsets. I think that what we're seeing is better rolling wheelsets because of the near-universal use of metal wheelsets by STMFC modellers, and the improved quality of the needlepoint axle ends on them.

As for car weight, I've read from several sources that opine that consistency in weight is important, not slavish adherance to NMRA specs.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@...> wrote:

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


Re: model car weight

William Keene <wakeene@...>
 

Hello Group,

I continue to weight my cars per the NMRA recommendations. And like Mark, my freight cars are equipped with semi-scale wheel sets and Sergent couplers. I do not really worry about rolling qualities very much as my trains "never" exceed twelve cars. And for most operations maybe no more than eight cars.

My recommendation is to stick with what we know works. This should, or could, result in less hassles later.

Happy Modeling
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On Jul 21, 2010, at 2:48 PM, bnonut@... wrote:

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@...>
Sender: STMFC@...
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06
To: <STMFC@...>
Reply-To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] model car weight

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver




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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: model car weight

Mark
 

One party, NMRA member, told us the original weight requirements were put in place for the early trucks. Guy models the B&O in the fifties. He had quite a few articles in Railroad Model Journal.
I usually use two large nuts per boxcar. Leave one truck loose and keep the other tighter.
Prefer the semiscale wheels and sergent couplers.

Mark Morgan
Sent on the Sprint Now Network from my BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Pierre" <pierre.oliver@...>
Sender: STMFC@...
Date: Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:38:06
To: <STMFC@...>
Reply-To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] model car weight

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


model car weight

Pierre <pierre.oliver@...>
 

With the growing use of semi-scale wheel sets and their improved rolling characteristics, has anyone done any research or have an opinion on the suggested weight of model freight cars?
I thought I had heard one opinion that the the NMRA RP for car weight are somewhat heavy for today's better rolling models.
Thanks,
Pierre Oliver


acf type21 trucks

Mark
 

I mentioned a harbor tank line car and forgot to ask what would be the best trucks for these. Modeling around 1957.
Once again thanks in advance. Mark Morgan


Re: SAL XM-1 Boxcar (B4)

Tim O'Connor
 

John, I know for sure in some cases the 40-ton or 50-ton capacity of
a box car was strictly a matter of the trucks, and not the car itself.
Wabash had old trucks put under some new box cars and these cars were
rated at 40 tons. So the differences in crossbearers of the B-4 and
B-5 may, or may not, have anything to do with their capacities.

Tim O'Connor

If it means anything, the B-4 was a 40-ton car, and the B-5--which used only the single heavy crossbearer--was a 50-ton car. You would think the application of the bearers would be reversed.
John Golden
Bloomington, IN


message 32719

Mark
 

Mr. Hendrickson mentioned that the proto 2000 Harbor Tank Line cars were correct for the 1957 modeler. Did I read this wrong? Bought two of these and two UTLX kits for $20!!!

Sincerely, Mark Morgan


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Ed Hawkins
 

On Jul 19, 2010, at 10:19 PM, Steve Lucas wrote:

In Hamilton, Ontario, in January, 1991, I took a photo of UTLX 91624,
shown as "BLT 5 71". But a stencil under the car number says "UTC 7
51". Capacity stencilled on the end of the tank is given as "10 987
GAL US". This car seems very similar to the Atlas HO ICC-105 tank car.

This car number shows as part of series 91000 to 93999 in the
January, 1953 ORER.
Steve,
The 91000-series UTLX tank cars were nearly 4' longer than the
equivalent 11,000-gallon ICC 105A cars built by AC&F beginning in 1947.
The tank diameter was correspondingly smaller than on the cars built by
AC&F.

There was a relatively low number of 11,000-gallon 105A tank cars built
by AC&F and sold to the Union Tank Line that could possibly "match" the
Atlas model. Four orders were very small quantities. Given the large
quantities of UTLX cars that were often built in a given order, these
small quantities make no sense to me unless UTLX bought cars that were
originally ordered by someone else and then the orders were cancelled
after the cars were already in production. Perhaps UTLX got a "good
deal" price from AC&F that was too good to pass up. Each of the
following 5 orders were ACF-design cars having 38'-5" long underframes
(measured to end sills).

96263-96272, 10 cars, lot 3169, 2-48
96291-96297, 7 cars, lot 3225, 7-48
99273-99274, 2 cars, lot 3384, 11-48
96275-96276, 2 cars, lot 3356, 11-48
96412-96461, 50 cars, lot 3748, 6-52

Incidentally, the lot 3748 order was the final UTLX order from AC&F
during the 1950s. Subsequent UTLX tank cars built during the 1950s were
by by the company at their own shops.

In 1947-1949 UTLX received 2,400 cars built by AC&F to UTLX design with
underframe length of 42'-3" between end sills.

92000-93199, 1,200 cars, lot 3263, 5-48
93800-93999, 200 cars, lot 3263B, ca. 1949
98195-98899, 705 cars, lot 3085, 5-47
99223-99322, 100 cars, lot 3263A, ca. 1948 or 1949
99400-99499, 100 cars, lot 3103, 7-47
99905-99999, 95 cars, lot 3085, 5-47

A photo from the Charles Winters collection of UTLX 94751 shows an
11,000-gallon, ICC 105A300W, 42'-3"-long, propane car built 9-54 and
lettered for Anchorgas. The car displays similar graphics to the Atlas
model of URTX 94614 shown on their web site. However, the Atlas model
is a bogus representation of the prototype UTLX-design cars of this
type. Hope this helps.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Milwaukee convention report

Bill Schneider
 

Got home late last night. You know, I go away for a few days and look what happens..... You guys scare me! :>)

Despite (or perhaps because of...) my best attempts at skimpy attire and careful coifing of my luxurious locks (inspired in no small part by Tom M's latest styles...) we felt that traffic by our booth was very light all weekend and were somewhat disappointed. It seems from talking to others at the show that we were not the only ones who felt that way. However, some of the retailers did quite well, so go figure.

And, as has been mentioned, not a Vestie in sight all weekend! Has an era passed?

Oh, and regarding the Rapido freight car announcement (and closer to topic).... although the design work has been done for a while, the factory is running behind on tooling so no announcement until we are closer. I am enjoying the speculation though, so keep it coming!

Bill Schneider

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim O'Connor" <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 11:44:56 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Milwaukee convention report







Hmmmm.... I can see some Adobe Photoshop magic in the future... ;-)

Tim O'Connor

Bill Schneider - Rapido's "Booth Babe".
Tom Madden



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


Re: April 18, 1955 Railway Age

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Garth Groff wrote:
Bill,
Sorry, but my browser rejected your direct email address.
That's because Bill made a typo in the address. It should be fgexbill@...

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: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

SUVCWORR@...
 

Elden,

Try these for September 1956 aerial photo of the area. It may help. You can download a higher resolution photograph from www.pennpilot.psu.edu select the era from the drop down box and then the name of the location. Click on the red dot closest to the area you want to view. You will have the option to download the photos at three different resolutions or just click on the thumbnail for the default.

Rich Orr


http://data.cei.psu.edu/pennpilot/era1960/allegheny_1956/allegheny_1956_photos_jpg_200/allegheny_092156_aps_2r_143.jpg

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wed, Jul 21, 2010 7:28 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.


Rich;



Thanks for the info. It is no coincidence that those contaminants are also

by-products of coking, too, and that benzol, naptha, xylol and such were

products at USS Clairton. I understand from talking to someone at EPA that

the West Elizabeth site was not only the dump for the Clairton plant, but

that they dumped huge amounts of waste there such that the groundwater

beneath and downslope was contaminated very badly. That being said, it seems

the remediation has been largely successful.



Someone told me PICCOP hauled that waste cake off-site in dump trucks;

however, PICCO also had a small siding and fenced-in area in West Elizabeth

that I at one time had an aerial photo of, where it appeared they dumped used

equipment and such. I can't find any record of it in older PRR records, so I

have no idea how long it was in service, but I would guess PICCO could load

up old equipment in a gon or box car and take it up the Mon to that site to

dump.



I wish I could find that photo!



Elden Gatwood





Elden:


Hercules bought PICCO in 1973 well after the time frame of this list.



If the waste from the plant gives you any hint of activities, they buried

85,000 tons of hazardous waste in Jefferson Borough. The site is on the

National Priority List. Items disposed were benzene, styrene, naphthalene,

lead, clay polycake and dechlor polycake from resin filters. These wastes

were generated by PICCO at the Clariton plant from 1950 - mid 1980's (covers

time frame for list)



Rich Orr



-----Original Message-----

From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...

<mailto:elden.j.gatwood%40usace.army.mil> >

To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 11:31 am

Subject: RE: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.



Kurt;



Do you know anything about Hercules involvement in Pennsylvania Industrial



Chemical Co. (PICCO)? They were a big producer of resins, and I think



someone told me Hercules bought them. They had patents to stuff like



Piccolastic and such. PICCO received tank car loads of petroleum, at their



Clairton, PA plant, then processed to produce these resins, some of which



were used in the rubber industry. I have always wanted to know more details



about that operation as it pertains to freight car traffic, particularly.



Elden Gatwood



-----Original Message-----



From: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>

[mailto:STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of

Kurt



Laughlin



Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:52 PM



To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>



Subject: Re: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.



I used to work for Hercules. They were formed around 1905 by the break-up of



DuPont's monopoly on explosives. They made gunpowder, blasting powder,



dynamite and other explosives. During WW II they operated several



explosive/ammunition plants for the Government. After the war they became



involved in the rocket industry and were still making them until they were



sold/spun-off/bought out by Alliant TechSystems post-1989. They also had



large industrial chemical and plastics businesses. I think now they just make



specialty chemicals.



. . . And further looking finds this article mentiong some business areas and



chemicals:



http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Hercules-Inc-Company-History



.html



KL



----- Original Message -----



From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD



I had done some research on Hercules Powder and predecessors some time ago,



and had only been able to find out info that they made industrial solvents



and resins, most or all of which was shipped in either 103's or 104's. I am



unaware of any pressurized tanks they had painted, or products that would



have required same.



Some of the other cars are also painted as liquid chlorine cars, whioch was



also not shipped in big 105's, AFAIK.



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



Yahoo! Groups Links



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/



Individual Email | Traditional



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join



(Yahoo! ID required)



STMFC-digest@... <mailto:STMFC-digest%40yahoogroups.com>



STMFC-fullfeatured@...

<mailto:STMFC-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>



STMFC-unsubscribe@...

<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

















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



Yahoo! Groups Links



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/



Individual Email | Traditional



http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join

(Yahoo! ID required)



STMFC-digest@...

STMFC-fullfeatured@...



STMFC-unsubscribe@...



http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: April 18, 1955 Railway Age

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Bill,

Sorry, but my browser rejected your direct email address.

You should be able to order up a bound volume for 1955 through interlibrary loan via your public library. If your public library can't get it, I probably can, though I can't guarantee the quality of photocopy will be any better than you already have.

Let me know if I should follow up on this.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff (UVA Library Cataloging Dept.)

lnbill wrote:

I am wondering if anyone on this list has a copy of the Railway Age from April 18, 1955. I believe the date is correct but the copy I have of the article I have is not sharp so I could be off in terms of the day of the month. The article in question is "Mechanical Cooling Pays Its Way" by C. B. Peck.

If you have a copy, or access to one, could you please contact me offline at fgexbill@.... I would like to try to get a better copy of this article for my reseach.

Thanks!

Bill Welch



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

Yahoo! Groups Links




April 18, 1955 Railway Age

Bill Welch
 

I am wondering if anyone on this list has a copy of the Railway Age from April 18, 1955. I believe the date is correct but the copy I have of the article I have is not sharp so I could be off in terms of the day of the month. The article in question is "Mechanical Cooling Pays Its Way" by C. B. Peck.

If you have a copy, or access to one, could you please contact me offline at fgexbill@.... I would like to try to get a better copy of this article for my reseach.

Thanks!

Bill Welch


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Rich;

Thanks for the info. It is no coincidence that those contaminants are also
by-products of coking, too, and that benzol, naptha, xylol and such were
products at USS Clairton. I understand from talking to someone at EPA that
the West Elizabeth site was not only the dump for the Clairton plant, but
that they dumped huge amounts of waste there such that the groundwater
beneath and downslope was contaminated very badly. That being said, it seems
the remediation has been largely successful.

Someone told me PICCOP hauled that waste cake off-site in dump trucks;
however, PICCO also had a small siding and fenced-in area in West Elizabeth
that I at one time had an aerial photo of, where it appeared they dumped used
equipment and such. I can't find any record of it in older PRR records, so I
have no idea how long it was in service, but I would guess PICCO could load
up old equipment in a gon or box car and take it up the Mon to that site to
dump.

I wish I could find that photo!

Elden Gatwood


Elden:
Hercules bought PICCO in 1973 well after the time frame of this list.

If the waste from the plant gives you any hint of activities, they buried
85,000 tons of hazardous waste in Jefferson Borough. The site is on the
National Priority List. Items disposed were benzene, styrene, naphthalene,
lead, clay polycake and dechlor polycake from resin filters. These wastes
were generated by PICCO at the Clariton plant from 1950 - mid 1980's (covers
time frame for list)

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...
<mailto:elden.j.gatwood%40usace.army.mil> >
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 11:31 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Kurt;

Do you know anything about Hercules involvement in Pennsylvania Industrial

Chemical Co. (PICCO)? They were a big producer of resins, and I think

someone told me Hercules bought them. They had patents to stuff like

Piccolastic and such. PICCO received tank car loads of petroleum, at their

Clairton, PA plant, then processed to produce these resins, some of which

were used in the rubber industry. I have always wanted to know more details

about that operation as it pertains to freight car traffic, particularly.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----

From: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
Kurt

Laughlin

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:52 PM

To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

I used to work for Hercules. They were formed around 1905 by the break-up of

DuPont's monopoly on explosives. They made gunpowder, blasting powder,

dynamite and other explosives. During WW II they operated several

explosive/ammunition plants for the Government. After the war they became

involved in the rocket industry and were still making them until they were

sold/spun-off/bought out by Alliant TechSystems post-1989. They also had

large industrial chemical and plastics businesses. I think now they just make

specialty chemicals.

. . . And further looking finds this article mentiong some business areas and

chemicals:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Hercules-Inc-Company-History

.html

KL

----- Original Message -----

From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD

I had done some research on Hercules Powder and predecessors some time ago,

and had only been able to find out info that they made industrial solvents

and resins, most or all of which was shipped in either 103's or 104's. I am

unaware of any pressurized tanks they had painted, or products that would

have required same.

Some of the other cars are also painted as liquid chlorine cars, whioch was

also not shipped in big 105's, AFAIK.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

Individual Email | Traditional

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

STMFC-digest@... <mailto:STMFC-digest%40yahoogroups.com>

STMFC-fullfeatured@...
<mailto:STMFC-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>

STMFC-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

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


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Thanks, guys!

In all the time I rail-fanned and looked at the Clairton plant and had the
opportunity to ask more questions and take photos, I didn't do so, and now
have no written or photo references other than a few notes. I know they had
an unloading track with capacity for about 6 tank cars, and received tank
cars of petroleum, which they then refined into those many resins they
patented, which were then shipped out, much of it in drums. I recall some
drums that were painted in two shades of blue, with a logo of some kind. I
even recall some box cars that I believe they leased, with PICO reporting
marks on them, sometime after the interests of this list. I also believe
they at one time had a pipeline that ran across the PRR mainline on the side
of the P&WV/URR bridge, that USS pumped fluids into the plant through, but
that was removed at some point. I have never been able to find the story on
that, either.

There is a fine photo of a pair of P&WV H-20-44's pulling a group of
insulated tank cars onto the PRR's running track in Clairton, by which the
PRR served PICCO, off of the P&WV's interchange track just south of Peters
Creek. It's a great shot in that it also includes the P&WV's switchman
holding the signal for the crossing of State St/837. I strongly suspect that
this photo captured a move of tank cars destined for PICCO, that the P&WV was
going to "park" on the PRR running track for the PRR's Wilson Yard switcher
to deliver. I have never seen anything to indicate that P&WV had track
rights on any of that trackage, but always suspected that both PRR and P&WV
had to use portions of one another's tracks to do interchange. The tank cars
look to be AC&F 8k insulated cars, with dome platforms, which would be a
preferred car for that type of traffic, particularly if PICCO had no loading
platform from which to load processed resins.

Some cars used in resin service were nickel-lined or nickel alloy. I don't
know how that happened, as those 103-A-N cars (which usually had a 1% dome)
were normally used to haul nasty stuff like phosphorous oxychloride or benzyl
chloride, but maybe some resins were that harsh on steel.

I hope to get more definitive info some day.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
SUVCWORR@...
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:48 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.




Elden:

Hercules bought PICCO in 1973 well after the time frame of this list.

If the waste from the plant gives you any hint of activities, they buried
85,000 tons of hazardous waste in Jefferson Borough. The site is on the
National Priority List. Items disposed were benzene, styrene, naphthalene,
lead, clay polycake and dechlor polycake from resin filters. These wastes
were generated by PICCO at the Clariton plant from 1950 - mid 1980's (covers
time frame for list)

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...
<mailto:elden.j.gatwood%40usace.army.mil> >
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tue, Jul 20, 2010 11:31 am
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Kurt;

Do you know anything about Hercules involvement in Pennsylvania Industrial

Chemical Co. (PICCO)? They were a big producer of resins, and I think

someone told me Hercules bought them. They had patents to stuff like

Piccolastic and such. PICCO received tank car loads of petroleum, at their

Clairton, PA plant, then processed to produce these resins, some of which

were used in the rubber industry. I have always wanted to know more details

about that operation as it pertains to freight car traffic, particularly.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----

From: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
Kurt

Laughlin

Sent: Monday, July 19, 2010 8:52 PM

To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>

Subject: Re: [STMFC] Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

I used to work for Hercules. They were formed around 1905 by the break-up of

DuPont's monopoly on explosives. They made gunpowder, blasting powder,

dynamite and other explosives. During WW II they operated several

explosive/ammunition plants for the Government. After the war they became

involved in the rocket industry and were still making them until they were

sold/spun-off/bought out by Alliant TechSystems post-1989. They also had

large industrial chemical and plastics businesses. I think now they just make

specialty chemicals.

. . . And further looking finds this article mentiong some business areas and

chemicals:

http://www.fundinguniverse.com/company-histories/Hercules-Inc-Company-History

.html

KL

----- Original Message -----

From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD

I had done some research on Hercules Powder and predecessors some time ago,

and had only been able to find out info that they made industrial solvents

and resins, most or all of which was shipped in either 103's or 104's. I am

unaware of any pressurized tanks they had painted, or products that would

have required same.

Some of the other cars are also painted as liquid chlorine cars, whioch was

also not shipped in big 105's, AFAIK.

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/

Individual Email | Traditional

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/join

(Yahoo! ID required)

STMFC-digest@... <mailto:STMFC-digest%40yahoogroups.com>

STMFC-fullfeatured@...
<mailto:STMFC-fullfeatured%40yahoogroups.com>

STMFC-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe%40yahoogroups.com>

http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Hercules Powder tankcar et al.

Nathaniel Gould
 

An interesting article I came across regarding Hercules Powder and it's relationship to the dawn of the plastics age:

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/it/1990/1/1990_1_44.shtml

A few plant locations are mentioned which could lend themselves to further research...

Nate Gould

--- In STMFC@..., "Gatwood, Elden J SAD " <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:

I had done some research on Hercules Powder and predecessors some time ago,
and had only been able to find out info that they made industrial solvents
and resins, most or all of which was shipped in either 103's or 104's. I am
unaware of any pressurized tanks they had painted, or products that would
have required same.

Some of the other cars are also painted as liquid chlorine cars, whioch was
also not shipped in big 105's, AFAIK.

The only one that seemed plausible, but I have no proof of this application,
is the (Barrett?) anhydrous car, which product was shipped in big pressurized
tanks.

Elden Gatwood

103681 - 103700 of 195501