Date   

PHOTO LISTING

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

There was a posting on the list over the weekend from a gentleman who displayed
quite a list of freight car photos. Regretfully I deleted this before I saw the value. Doer
anyone have his e-mail and does he sell the photos?

Thanks:

Bill Pardie


Re: Charles Winters photos

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

Richard:

Is there a more complete e-mail address for Harold Vollrath?

Bill
On Mar 8, 2011, at 11:53 PM, lnbill wrote:

Actually this collection went to a well known collector of diesel
photos whose name escapes me. However Jay Williams has been
"renting" the freight negatives and has been selling prints for a
couple of years now.

I would still contact Mr. Vollrath, as he has some freight car
photos of his own.

Bill Welch

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

On Mar 8, 2011, at 6:40 PM, O Fenton Wells wrote:

I'm trying to track down some Southern freight car photos. Does
anyone know
Charles Winters and how to contact him. Is he still selling
photos?

Alas, Charlie Winters died several years ago. It's my understanding
that his collection of freight car photos (most taken by George
Sisk)
went to Harold Vollrath. The e-mail address I have for Harold is
<hkvollrath@...>.

Richard Hendrickson






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


Re: Prototypes for 6' 6/6/5 "upside down" youngstown door

Tim O'Connor
 

Andy, you can add

GM&O 22000- 22419 built 1947 ACF lot 3141
L&N 19000- 19499 built 1947 PS lot 5866

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

Andy Carlson wrote

This door is called a YSD-2A in Hawkins-speak, or a 5/5/4 (Ed counts the ribs instead of the panels). See Ed's article in Railmodel Journal, October 1999. The article correctly identifies the B-50-39 door, as well as the NC&StL, NS, and GM&O (see correction) -- but not the GN cars! Here are some more in his list.

ATSF Bx-48
ATSF Bx-50
ATSF Bx-53
ATSF Bx-62
ATSF Bx-63 (?)
GM&O 21000-21749 (21750-21999 had 7p Superior doors)
ITC 6500-6849
MONON 251-500
GOC 222-251
GA 29000-29049
A&WP 37600-37649
WofA 17600-17649
WABASH 88200-88699
WP 20551-20800
SOU 23000-23241
SOU 23269-23299
SOU 23473-23486
SOU 262040-262049
SOU 307025-307027
SOU 330000-330499 (NO&NE)

I have a small list of verified users of the 6' wide Youngstown post-war steel
6/6/5 door. Ted Culotta has a UP B-50-39 40' 6" ACR HO boxcar resin kit which
uses Dan Hall's accurate door. I have some additions:

Great Northern 40'-0" IL 8 panel plywood sided boxcar # series 10800-10899, the
last 100 single door plywood boxcars built new by the GN in 1947. These are the
only cars I have found where a nominally 10-6 IH door was used on a 10-0 IH car,
a practice GN often followed.

Gulf Mobile & Ohio 40'-6" IL 10 panel riveted single door 10'-6" IH boxcar
#series 21000-22419 with 1419 cars listed within the group in 1953, built in
1947.

Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis 40'-6" IL single door 10 panel riveted steel
boxcar # series 19000-19499 with R+3/4 IDE, built in 1947.

Norfolk Southern (original) 40'-6" IL single door 10 panel riveted steel boxcar
# series 27000-27249 class XM5 with 4/4 IDE, built in 1947

Union Pacific 40'6" IL 10 panel ACR riveted steel single door boxcar, series
197000-198999 class B-50-39 built in 1947.

I have photo documentation for all of the above acquired from the Gerstley late
50's color slide collection. I have just screened the the "G" through "N", so
hopefully, I will find other examples. Feel free to add to this list. Thanks,


Re: Cor-ten

water.kresse@...
 

I haven't seen any beefing up of the side stakes in the C&Os Cor-Ten steel 70-ton hopper cars of the 50s.  Hopper car sides previously had to deal with the same clamping forces from the car dumpers.  Did the 1935 Mechanical Comm published empirical formulas that the they used to design freight cars for use more than a generic steel?  I don't think they got into fringe pattern analysis on freight car models until the 1960s (ACF advertisements for flat cars).



Is there some good reading on how they designed and tested say coal cars in the 1920s, 30s, 40s 50 and 60s out there?  I got the feeling it was a cut a paste process.  Set some deflection targets, load the car up with stone for a 50 percent overload, measure it, then torsionally twist it and measure it, then rack it and measure it, etc.  I assume that they looked at the deflection plots and beefed it up near where the curvature was greatest . . and repeated the tests?  I seem to remember reading about the N&W filing a proto coal car with water to see where and how much it expanded.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 9, 2011 2:43:09 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Cor-ten

Rick Aylsworth wrote:
Cor-ten is only one type of high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel,  
and not all HSLA steels have corrosion-resistant properties. So the  
use of the term HSLA does not automatically mean Cor-ten or other  
corrosion-resisting steel was used. "Weathering steel", "Cumoloy",  
and "copper-bearing steel" are terms used for similar corrosion-
resistant steels. Cor-ten is a US Steel trademark. These steels  
still rust, but the rust adheres tightly, sealing off the underlying  
metal from the atmosphere.
         Good statement about HSLA steels, the great majority of which  
do NOT have unusual corrosion resistance. In the corrosion-resisting  
steels, the rust doesn't really adhere that well, but is more  
voluminous than the metal it replaces, thus shielding the metal. One  
consequence (to the dismay of architects) is that a continuous  
sloughing-off of that rust occurs, severely staining foundations or  
sidewalks below exposed steels like Cor-Ten. This is blindingly  
evident at buildings like the U.S. Steel building in Pittsburgh.

I can't cite RR-specific references, but the decision to use lighter-
gauge HSLA or weathering steel rather than heavier gauge  
conventional steels is driven by two different factors. One factor  
is the greater strength of many of these alloys, thus allowing a  
thinner section to have the same strength as thicker convebtional  
steel.
      True. But most structures, including freight cars, are NOT  
designed to strength limits, but to stiffness limits. The HSLA or any  
other alloy steels are no stiffer than plain carbon steel, so there is  
a loss in structural stiffness with thinner sections. This is why the  
ACR and 12-panel box car designs came along, in an effort to  
compensate for thinner side sheets. A designer of a hopper car using  
thinner side sheets would probably beef up side stakes or other parts  
of the structure to compensate--obviously reducing somewhat the weight  
savings.

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: Pennsy Class X-44 50 ft. and UP Class B-50-39 40 ft. Boxcar Roof Colors (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Nelson;

The painting instructions appear to indicate that the roofs were painted, but
photos appear to show only the roof seam caps may have been or remained
painted since they had galvanized roof panels. The r/b would have been the
same; i.e., initially painted, but NOT with asphaltum (not black). If the
roof WERE painted, photos clearly show in instances where we can see them,
that the paint rapidly came off the panels, but most (or rust) remained on
the seam caps. Since we can't be definitive on how they all looked
(particularly right out of the factory), then, you may want to consider
painting the roof to look like this (with some time on the road):

Bare galvanized panels, with maybe some hint of paint and/or overspray;

Rusty seam caps, with some hints of car cement used in sealing them, and;

Mostly galvanized-colored r/b, with some hints of paint and/or overspray down
in recesses.

That's the way I've been doing them, and nobody gets to tell you, that you
are "wrong"...

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Nelson Moyer
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:52 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Pennsy Class X-44 50 ft. and UP Class B-50-39 40 ft. Boxcar
Roof Colors



Thanks to those on the list who educated me on the roof issues re PRR Class
X-43 boxcars. My current question pertains to the roof color for PRR Class
X-44 50 ft. boxcars, specifically the Branchline kit version. The roof comes
painted PRR boxcar red but the running board is painted or molded black. Do I
paint the running board to match the roof, paint the roof to match the
running board, or leave both as they are?

Another question pertains to the roof color on UP Class B-50-39 40 ft.
boxcars. An article in Railmodel Journal gives roof color as black, but the
model photos on the Speedwich web site show color pictures of the model with
a oxide red roof to match the rest of the car. The Branchline kit comes with
oxide red roof and running board. What is the correct roof color for this
class?

Nelson

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





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Cor-ten

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Rick Aylsworth wrote:
Cor-ten is only one type of high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel, and not all HSLA steels have corrosion-resistant properties. So the use of the term HSLA does not automatically mean Cor-ten or other corrosion-resisting steel was used. "Weathering steel", "Cumoloy", and "copper-bearing steel" are terms used for similar corrosion- resistant steels. Cor-ten is a US Steel trademark. These steels still rust, but the rust adheres tightly, sealing off the underlying metal from the atmosphere.
Good statement about HSLA steels, the great majority of which do NOT have unusual corrosion resistance. In the corrosion-resisting steels, the rust doesn't really adhere that well, but is more voluminous than the metal it replaces, thus shielding the metal. One consequence (to the dismay of architects) is that a continuous sloughing-off of that rust occurs, severely staining foundations or sidewalks below exposed steels like Cor-Ten. This is blindingly evident at buildings like the U.S. Steel building in Pittsburgh.

I can't cite RR-specific references, but the decision to use lighter- gauge HSLA or weathering steel rather than heavier gauge conventional steels is driven by two different factors. One factor is the greater strength of many of these alloys, thus allowing a thinner section to have the same strength as thicker convebtional steel.
True. But most structures, including freight cars, are NOT designed to strength limits, but to stiffness limits. The HSLA or any other alloy steels are no stiffer than plain carbon steel, so there is a loss in structural stiffness with thinner sections. This is why the ACR and 12-panel box car designs came along, in an effort to compensate for thinner side sheets. A designer of a hopper car using thinner side sheets would probably beef up side stakes or other parts of the structure to compensate--obviously reducing somewhat the weight savings.

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: B&O O-27b gondola and other railroad with similar cars (UNCLASSIFIED)

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Good points, Jim!

It is very interesting why the resin kit makers (or their pattern makers)
have chosen not to pursue more of the "intermediate" classes like the O-27B.
There were a large number of gons in between 46' and "new standard" 52'6" IL
cars that have not been done. I think DL&W, Erie, NYC, LT, URR, B&LE and
others all had gons around the 50'IL length.

Write to your favorite resin kit guys and suggest it!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
jim_mischke
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 5:22 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] B&O O-27b gondola and other railroad with similar cars




The B&O class O-27b gondola is an interesting car, a 50' fishbelly
Bethlehem-built steel gondola that preceded the standard 52'6" gondola. B&O
had thousands of these O-27b gondolas and modified them for many purposes and
they lasted in some form into the 1970's.

Model manufacturers are attracted to multiple road name freight cars ....
like moths to light .... and I could make a better case to a resin or plastic
model manufacturer if I knew of other railroads besides B&O with this
Bethlehem 50' gondola. I invite discussion and insights on this matter.

This B&O O-27b is not to be confused with the B&O O-27/O-27a gondolas, which
were shorter USRA and USRA clone steel gondolas. Why B&O lumped these
dissimilar cars in the same class is a mystery.





Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE


Re: Cor-ten, was Panel side hoppers

gettheredesigns <rick@...>
 

Hi all,

Cor-ten is only one type of high-strength low-alloy (HSLA) steel, and not all HSLA steels have corrosion-resistant properties. So the use of the term HSLA does not automatically mean Cor-ten or other corrosion-resisting steel was used. "Weathering steel", "Cumoloy", and "copper-bearing steel" are terms used for similar corrosion-resistant steels. Cor-ten is a US Steel trademark. These steels still rust, but the rust adheres tightly, sealing off the underlying metal from the atmosphere.

I can't cite RR-specific references, but the decision to use lighter-gauge HSLA or weathering steel rather than heavier gauge conventional steels is driven by two different factors. One factor is the greater strength of many of these alloys, thus allowing a thinner section to have the same strength as thicker convebtional steel. The second factor is that a "corrosion allowance" is not needed when designing with weathering steels. In designing with conventional steel, the engineer needs to consider retained strength after years of corrosion, and perhaps use heavier sections to compensate. So a new car might be overbuilt in the rust-prone areas, so it will remain in service longer. Weathering steels make this unnecessary, resulting in a lighter car.

The B&LE (a US Steel road) was buying Cor-ten hoppers in 1936--would they have been early-adopters to promote their own product?

Hope somebody finds this interesting...Rick Aylsworth

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:



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



While the panel sizes are not that much different, there appears to be a greater depth of draw and the side-wall angles are more aggressive.  The radii also appear to be smaller.  Do we know if these were cold or warm-formed?  Where any every made out of COR-TEN steel?



Al Kresse
Alas, I really can't answer your questions. My reference materials for the decade of the thirties are seriously lacking. IIRC, the first panel side installations were done in 1931, but they are not in the 1931 Cyc. The earliest reference I can easily lay my hands on is the 1940 Cyc, and at that point the panel side concept was approaching ten years of age, and there is no editorial info, other than SRECo was presenting drawings of two versions. Tony Thompson sounded like he was familiar with a Railway Age article; perhaps he knows more.

The 1940 Cyc. was all abuzz about the new low alloy high strength steels, but no indication how long they had been available. Googling Cor-ten and ASTM A242 didn't fare any better; nine thousand references to rusty sculptures and buildings, but not a single decent history of development with a date.

It's certainly possible, it appears that US Steel was pushing Cor-ten for hopper slope sheets and the like because of its corrosion resistance without suggesting the cross section be reduced... that appears to be where the car-builders were trying to get an edge with "lightweight" car designs that took advantage of the increased tensile strength.

Interesting point about the deep draw of the panels. makes me wonder if the failure mode was rusting through at the bottom corners, since the sheet would have become considerably thinner in those areas.

Dennis


Re: Panel side hoppers

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., RUTLANDRS@... wrote:

Dennis,
Please tell me that the photo on page 26 is in color and that the cars
were black!! Seems to me that the cars when built or in service in the
late 40's were balck. Yes, I am aware that most claim NYC open cars were red.
Thanks,
Chuck Hladik
Hey, all I have is a Xerox copy of the magazine pages, and given the contrast gain inherent in photocopying a halftone, the images are most definitely black. :(

I don't think the originals were color... they look like professional large format view camera work.

Dennis


Re: Air Brushing sorta OT

gettheredesigns <rick@...>
 

Hi Jon, "detergent" oil was developed for systems that actively filter the oil, like a car engine. The detergent additives keep particles suspended in the oil so they will get filtered out. In a machine like a small compressor, the oil is not filtered. Non-detergent oil allows wear particles and dirt to settle out in the sump where they can do no harm.
Peace, Rick Aylsworth

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

Using my compressor (used to airbrush freight cars;-) ) I have
often wondered why they need to use non-detergent oil?

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



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


Re: Panel side hoppers

A. Premo <armprem2@...>
 

Marty,The CV had some weird applications of panels that were not uniform.Photographic evidence is necessary to insure any degree of accuracy.Armand Premo ----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 11:01 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers



Armand,

You're correct - the CV cars were smaller than the USRA cars which is why I started with a Bowser GLa car body.

Stan makes a kit to convert the Bowser GLa into the one-of PRR panel-side car. I have two sets of his cast resin blister panels since the arrangement of the panels was different on the CV panel cars. To duplicate it I needed two of Stan's kits. I'll have some leftover panels that I may use to do a "partially panelized" cars.

Marty

--- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem2@...> wrote:
>
> Marty,Just compare the dimensions.AFAIK the CV never owned any USRA hoppers.I have yet to try a panel on Bowser's GLa type to model the CV's hoppers.Doesn't Accurail have a paneled hopper?.Armand Premo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Marty
> To: STMFC@...
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:28 AM
> Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers
>
>
>
> That's why I started with the Bowser car when I wanted to build a few of these (see the first issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist).
>
> I have one of Stan's panel side conversion kits to make a panelized XCV car, but haven't finished that project yet. It would even be possible to make a model of the CV's "partial panelized" car Don referred to in his note.
>
> Also, in the February issue of MRH I included a picture I took showing the photo books on display at the last CVRHS meeting. The picture showing in the notebook happens to be one taken during the rebuilding of the hoppers with the blister panels.
>
> Marty McGuirk
>
> --- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem2@> wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately the CV cars mentioned were not USRA cars,but dimensionally close to Bowser's GLa s.Armand Premo
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Don
> > To: STMFC@...
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:49 PM
> > Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> Internal Virus Database is out of date.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
> __________________________________________________________
> Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
> If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
> http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d7798528fc44129f57st01duc
>
>
>






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.netzero.net/freeemail?refcd=NZTAGOUT1FREM0210


Re: Air Brushing sorta OT

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Using my compressor (used to airbrush freight cars;-) ) I have
often wondered why they need to use non-detergent oil?

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


Re: Weathering Couplers

Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

Hi Chuck,

I made a painting fixture for couplers by screwing alligator clips to a strip of wood. I just clip a coupler into each one and then hold the wood strip to spray them. As an added refinement, I made a stand with an S-shaped strip of brass stock screwed to a block of wood, and screwed the strip with the clips on top of that. With that rig I can paint a bunch of couplers at one time and keep my hand out of the spray pattern (mostly).

I leave the pins on too, because on many parts of my layout I intend to uncouple magnetically. The latest version of the Kadee 209 electro-magnet can be concealed completely under the ties and still work perfectly.

Your layout looks nice on the video. If you've made any additions or changes since it appeared in RMC, why don't you send some photos to us?

Thanks for writing,

Andy


Re: Panel side hoppers

Charles Hladik
 

Dennis,
Please tell me that the photo on page 26 is in color and that the cars
were black!! Seems to me that the cars when built or in service in the
late 40's were balck. Yes, I am aware that most claim NYC open cars were red.
Thanks,
Chuck Hladik

In a message dated 3/9/2011 11:12:46 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
destorzek@... writes:






--- In _STMFC@... (mailto:STMFC@...) , "moonmuln"
<jack.f.mullen@...> wrote:


I'm pretty fuzzy on the dates for most of the panel side installations,
and it would be helpful if those who know when specific groups were done
would add that to our pool of knowledge.

Now that I'm at work, I pulled material copied from the Third Quarter 1980
issue of Central Headlight, which has an extensive article by C.M. Smith
about the NYC system USRA twin hoppers. On page 9 it states that in 1933,
six prototype cars were converted. This was an early use of the panel sides,
but preceded by 23 twins and a larger number of triples rebuilt by the C&O
in 1932. This is, IIRC, my source for naming Union Metal Products as the
manufacturer; the 1940 Cyc. shows the product line passed to the Standard
Railway Equipment Co.

Page 27 has a good close photo of one of the 1933 prototypes, which
clearly shows it to make use of the original side stakes, or replacements
in-kind. This is the prototype for the Tichy kit.

The article goes on to state that 1,787 additional cars were rebuilt with
panel sides between 1936 and 1940. There is a photo on page 26 that
confirms that these cars were done with the side panels that incorporated integral
stakes, which is the prototype for the Accurail car. On page 24 there is a
close-up of one of the integral stakes; the margins of the panel around
the pressed "blister" show a lot more distortion (wrinkles)than I would have
suspected.

On page 13 is an interesting photo of one of 1,419 P&LE cars rebuilt at
East Rochester in 1936. This car has integral stakes, but the center six
panels are of the 5-1/2" variety illustrated in the "bulb angle" configuration
drawing in the 1940 Cyc. As I mentioned in a post the other day, the end
panels have the more common 4" blisters, and the lighting in the photo makes
it very clear that all the tops of the blisters have the same angle, so the
bend of the end panels doesn't line up with that of the six center panels.

Nowhere in this material does it state what type of steel these panels
were made of.

All this just points out there are a lot of variation between cars rebuilt
with panel sides. Union Metal Products (later SRECo)had a design concept,
which they could , and did, modify to fit different cars and different
customer wants.

Dennis


Re: Weathering Couplers

Layout Tour
 

Andy,

I've airbrushed diluted Floquil and Polly Scale mixes
similar to those mentioned by Andy and Nelson on couplers and haven't found
any effect on coupling. I do leave the trip pins on and have been using
dual magnets to uncouple in op sessions for about 3 years. This video gives
some idea how they work http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPXqCHwoRlk

If you buy 10 or 20 packs of Kadees, you can attach the
shanks with masking tape to the edge of a 1x2 and spray them all at once.
Then you'll always have some handy when you need them. The cut out for the
shank in an index card works well for RTR cars, then you don't have to
disassemble them. I have to try Tim's recommendation for Bag Clips. Seems
they will work well for painting a lot of things.



Chuck


Re: Panel side hoppers

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "moonmuln" <jack.f.mullen@...> wrote:


I'm pretty fuzzy on the dates for most of the panel side installations, and it would be helpful if those who know when specific groups were done would add that to our pool of knowledge.
Now that I'm at work, I pulled material copied from the Third Quarter 1980 issue of Central Headlight, which has an extensive article by C.M. Smith about the NYC system USRA twin hoppers. On page 9 it states that in 1933, six prototype cars were converted. This was an early use of the panel sides, but preceded by 23 twins and a larger number of triples rebuilt by the C&O in 1932. This is, IIRC, my source for naming Union Metal Products as the manufacturer; the 1940 Cyc. shows the product line passed to the Standard Railway Equipment Co.

Page 27 has a good close photo of one of the 1933 prototypes, which clearly shows it to make use of the original side stakes, or replacements in-kind. This is the prototype for the Tichy kit.

The article goes on to state that 1,787 additional cars were rebuilt with panel sides between 1936 and 1940. There is a photo on page 26 that confirms that these cars were done with the side panels that incorporated integral stakes, which is the prototype for the Accurail car. On page 24 there is a close-up of one of the integral stakes; the margins of the panel around the pressed "blister" show a lot more distortion (wrinkles)than I would have suspected.

On page 13 is an interesting photo of one of 1,419 P&LE cars rebuilt at East Rochester in 1936. This car has integral stakes, but the center six panels are of the 5-1/2" variety illustrated in the "bulb angle" configuration drawing in the 1940 Cyc. As I mentioned in a post the other day, the end panels have the more common 4" blisters, and the lighting in the photo makes it very clear that all the tops of the blisters have the same angle, so the bend of the end panels doesn't line up with that of the six center panels.

Nowhere in this material does it state what type of steel these panels were made of.

All this just points out there are a lot of variation between cars rebuilt with panel sides. Union Metal Products (later SRECo)had a design concept, which they could , and did, modify to fit different cars and different customer wants.

Dennis


Re: Panel side hoppers

Marty McGuirk
 

Armand,

You're correct - the CV cars were smaller than the USRA cars which is why I started with a Bowser GLa car body.

Stan makes a kit to convert the Bowser GLa into the one-of PRR panel-side car. I have two sets of his cast resin blister panels since the arrangement of the panels was different on the CV panel cars. To duplicate it I needed two of Stan's kits. I'll have some leftover panels that I may use to do a "partially panelized" cars.

Marty

--- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem2@...> wrote:

Marty,Just compare the dimensions.AFAIK the CV never owned any USRA hoppers.I have yet to try a panel on Bowser's GLa type to model the CV's hoppers.Doesn't Accurail have a paneled hopper?.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers



That's why I started with the Bowser car when I wanted to build a few of these (see the first issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist).

I have one of Stan's panel side conversion kits to make a panelized XCV car, but haven't finished that project yet. It would even be possible to make a model of the CV's "partial panelized" car Don referred to in his note.

Also, in the February issue of MRH I included a picture I took showing the photo books on display at the last CVRHS meeting. The picture showing in the notebook happens to be one taken during the rebuilding of the hoppers with the blister panels.

Marty McGuirk

--- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem2@> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the CV cars mentioned were not USRA cars,but dimensionally close to Bowser's GLa s.Armand Premo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don
> To: STMFC@...
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:49 PM
> Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers
>
>






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
____________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d7798528fc44129f57st01duc

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


Re: Panel side hoppers

A. Premo <armprem2@...>
 

Marty,Just compare the dimensions.AFAIK the CV never owned any USRA hoppers.I have yet to try a panel on Bowser's GLa type to model the CV's hoppers.Doesn't Accurail have a paneled hopper?.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Marty
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2011 9:28 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers



That's why I started with the Bowser car when I wanted to build a few of these (see the first issue of Model Railroad Hobbyist).

I have one of Stan's panel side conversion kits to make a panelized XCV car, but haven't finished that project yet. It would even be possible to make a model of the CV's "partial panelized" car Don referred to in his note.

Also, in the February issue of MRH I included a picture I took showing the photo books on display at the last CVRHS meeting. The picture showing in the notebook happens to be one taken during the rebuilding of the hoppers with the blister panels.

Marty McGuirk

--- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem2@...> wrote:
>
> Unfortunately the CV cars mentioned were not USRA cars,but dimensionally close to Bowser's GLa s.Armand Premo
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Don
> To: STMFC@...
> Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 1:49 PM
> Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers
>
>






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00
____________________________________________________________
Mortgage Rates Hit 2.99%
If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Gov't Refi Programs
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d7798528fc44129f57st01duc


Prototypes for 6' 6/6/5 "upside down" youngstown door

Andy Carlson
 

From Tim O'Connor, Ed Hawkins and my own observations. This has been shared
before on the STMFC list.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA



This door is called a YSD-2A in Hawkins-speak, or a 5/5/4
(Ed counts the ribs instead of the panels). See Ed's article
in Railmodel Journal, October 1999. The article correctly
identifies the B-50-39 door, as well as the NC&StL, NS, and
GM&O (see correction) -- but not the GN cars! Here are some
more in his list.

ATSF Bx-48
ATSF Bx-50
ATSF Bx-53
ATSF Bx-62
ATSF Bx-63 (?)
GM&O 21000-21749 (21750-21999 had 7p Superior doors)
ITC 6500-6849
MONON 251-500
GOC 222-251
GA 29000-29049
A&WP 37600-37649
WofA 17600-17649
WABASH 88200-88699
WP 20551-20800
SOU 23000-23241
SOU 23269-23299
SOU 23473-23486
SOU 262040-262049
SOU 307025-307027
SOU 330000-330499 (NO&NE)

At 1/13/2008 01:16 AM Sunday, you wrote:
I have a small list of verified users of the 6' wide Youngstown post-war steel
6/6/5 door. Ted Culotta has a UP B-50-39 40' 6" ACR HO boxcar resin kit which
(witch) uses Dan Hall's accurate door. I have some additions:

Great Northern 40'-0" IL 8 panel plywood sided boxcar # series 10800-10899, the
last 100 single door plywood boxcars built new by the GN in 1947. These are the
only cars I have found where a nominally 10-6 IH door was used on a 10-0 IH car,
a practice GN often followed.

Gulf Mobile & Ohio 40'-6" IL 10 panel riveted single door 10'-6" IH boxcar #
series 21000-22419 with 1419 cars listed within the group in 1953, built in
1947.

Nashville Chattanooga & St. Louis 40'-6" IL single door 10 panel riveted steel
boxcar # series 19000-19499 with R+3/4 IDE, built in 1947.

Norfolk Southern (original) 40'-6" IL single door 10 panel riveted steel boxcar
# series 27000-27249 class XM5 with 4/4 IDE, built in 1947

Union Pacific 40'6" IL 10 panel ACR riveted steel single door boxcar, series
197000-198999 class B-50-39 built in 1947.

I have photo documentation for all of the above acquired from the Gerstley late
50's color slide collection. I have just screened the the "G" through "N", so
hopefully, I will find other examples. Feel free to add to this list. Thanks,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


Cor-ten steel in freight cars was RE: Re: Panel side hoppers

Richard Orr <SUVCWORR@...>
 

There is a 1936 Popular Mechanics article about the use of Cor-Ten steel in
freight cars. It can be found at

http://books.google.com/books?id=CdsDAAAAMBAJ&pg=RA1-PA663&lpg=RA1-PA663&dq=
cor+ten+steel+hopper+cars&source=bl&ots=g9KANjWUkf&sig=S_h8EzkuvRRgXrr-KapIp
AR9ZdQ&hl=en&ei=f5J3TfLrIIbG0QGKp-jiBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=
1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cor%20ten%20steel%20hopper%20cars&f=false


on Google books.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
soolinehistory
Sent: Tuesday, March 08, 2011 11:21 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Panel side hoppers



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



While the panel sizes are not that much different, there appears to be a
greater depth of draw and the side-wall angles are more aggressive.  The
radii also appear to be smaller.  Do we know if these were cold or
warm-formed?  Where any every made out of COR-TEN steel?



Al Kresse
Alas, I really can't answer your questions. My reference materials for the
decade of the thirties are seriously lacking. IIRC, the first panel side
installations were done in 1931, but they are not in the 1931 Cyc. The
earliest reference I can easily lay my hands on is the 1940 Cyc, and at that
point the panel side concept was approaching ten years of age, and there is
no editorial info, other than SRECo was presenting drawings of two versions.
Tony Thompson sounded like he was familiar with a Railway Age article;
perhaps he knows more.

The 1940 Cyc. was all abuzz about the new low alloy high strength steels,
but no indication how long they had been available. Googling Cor-ten and
ASTM A242 didn't fare any better; nine thousand references to rusty
sculptures and buildings, but not a single decent history of development
with a date.

It's certainly possible, it appears that US Steel was pushing Cor-ten for
hopper slope sheets and the like because of its corrosion resistance without
suggesting the cross section be reduced... that appears to be where the
car-builders were trying to get an edge with "lightweight" car designs that
took advantage of the increased tensile strength.

Interesting point about the deep draw of the panels. makes me wonder if the
failure mode was rusting through at the bottom corners, since the sheet
would have become considerably thinner in those areas.

Dennis



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

Yahoo! Groups Links

98881 - 98900 of 196857