Date   

Re: speaking of SANTA FE

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Is there any current comments on the possible
ATSF tank car?


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


Re: QUESTION FOR SANTA FE EXPERTS

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

My next project is the Santa Fe BX-11/12 raised roof boxcar. I bought the
kit after a comment made in Naperville that proclaimed this the "Signature"
Santa Fe boxcar. The kit comes with both a wood and similated steel
roofwalk si I guess I can go either way. My other question is if these cars
retained the Dalman one level trucks on rebuilding.

Thanks in davance:

Bill Pardie


Re: LV decals

Layout Tour
 

Jim,

Try Dan Hicks. He has several very nice decal sets for the
LV, and I think one that would work for that car. Naturally I can't find
his list of decals right now. He doesn't have a website, but you can email
or contact him at D. Hicks Trains, P.O. Box 90722, Allentown, PA 18109
DHICKSTRAINS@.... Champ and CDS also had lettering for these cars, but
they are currently very hard to locate.



Chuck Davis


Big car sale

Bill McCoy
 

I've reached the conclusion that I'll never live long enough to build all the cars in the kit bunker so it's time to clean house. I have listed all cars for sale on an Excel spread sheet with three tabs, plastic cars, resin cars, brass cars. All have to go. Most are new in original boxes. The few that are assembled have metal wheels and Kadees. Some Kadees have the trip pins removed. All have been carefully assembled with no glue spills etc.

All who are interested please contact me off- line wpmccoy@... or by phone at 904-646-3485 (H) or 904-487-9437 (C) and I'll send you the list. Everything will be sold on a first come first served basis. Please include your Zip code so I can get postage . All shipping will be paid by the buyer. I prefer to use USPS Priority mail since the PO provides free packaging.

I will accept personal checks, money orders, and PayPal. If payment is not received in 5 calendar days after I provide you with the total including postage, the item will be relisted.

Thanks,

Bill McCoy
Jax, FL 32225


Spring Mills Depot to show off Pre Production M-53 at GSMTS

Ken Braden
 

Come one Come all to the GSMTS this weekend and see a pre-production
model of the Fox Valley Models M-53 Wagontop Boxcar.

That's right, come get all your questions answered as to "Is this car
really going to be that nice" BTW, YES IT IS!!!!

Come to the Spring Mills Depot tables to see the car and place your
order so you do not miss out!!!

The pre-production M-53 can be seen here www.smd.cc <http://www.smd.cc/>

Is the slack adjuster on the correct side? (yes)

Is there a rivet line where the roof curves over? (no)

Is this a car we have all been waiting for? asking for? questioning why
it was never produced? (YES)

Please support Fox Valley Models and Spring Mills Depot and purchase
these cars so more B&O specific cars can be produced.

Ken Braden
www.smd.cc <http://www.smd.cc>
www.fcsme.org <http://www.fcsme.org>


Re: Georgia RR decals

Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 6, 2011, at 10:28 AM, consol2579 wrote:

Does anyone know of a source for white Georgia RR decals for the
Tichy steel outside braced boxcar? As I understand it the silver
paint scheme was not instituted until the late 1950's so not
appropriate for era I model-1950-52. thanks, Tom Dill
Tom,

You are mistaken about the paint dates. The Georgia RR rebuilt USRA
boxcars have been discussed a number of times over the years on this
list. The general consensus is that they were painted aluminum
beginning in approximately 1941. Many of those cars were repainted
mineral red in the mid to late 1950s although some stayed in aluminum
into the 1960s, so actually, the aluminum and black scheme is
probably the best bet for you. Also note that the Tichy roof is not
correct for these cars as they either had a flat welded roof or a
radial roof. Finally, Richard Hendrickson noted, back in 2005, that
the aluminum cars often had their reweigh date painted out in some
other color, such as mineral red and restenciled in white at the time
of reweigh.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: boxcar design evolution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
There was a reasonable amount of resistance to the 9'-0" IH of the USRA cars as being "too big", wasteful since with most loads the cars would reach their load limit before they cubed out. Indeed, the ARA standard cars of 1923 reverted to the formerly common 8'-7" IH, although they retained the use of purpose designed pressings for posts and diagonals.
Not from all railroads. The SP had been building box cars of 9' 0" or more inside height (with Z-bar bracing) before the USRA cars came along, and after the war (when they had received 1000 cars of USRA single-sheath design) returned to Z-bar bracing and not only stayed with 9' 0" height but went beyond, to 9' 3" IH in the B-50-14 class of 1924. Moreover, the SP went on to build two sample cars to the ARA standard box car design of 1924, but then modified both the underframe (with reinforcements) and the height (increased by six inches to 9' 1") to construct two large classes of cars superficially like the ARA standards. Other western railroads also believed in tall box cars, whatever the viewpoint in the east.

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: Georgia RR decals

Tim O'Connor
 

Um, yes. Tichy #9132.

At 4/6/2011 11:28 AM Wednesday, you wrote:
Does anyone know of a source for white Georgia RR decals for the Tichy steel outside braced boxcar? As I understand it the silver paint scheme was not instituted until the late 1950's so not appropriate for era I model-1950-52. thanks, Tom Dill


Re: LV decals

Tim O'Connor
 

Good luck! Rich Meyer was working on a set, HC-53, when he passed away
and the set was never released AFAIK.

If you can find them, Champ HH-281 was special 10" heralds for hoppers,
HH-171/HH-271 were 20" heralds, and HH-181 was 16 1/2" heralds.

Tim O'Connor

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

Does anyone know of a good source for Lehigh Valley decals? I've got a
Stewart fish-belly side hopper that I'd like to paint for Lehigh
Valley. Thanks.
Jim Hunter


Re: LV decals

Greg Martin
 

Jim,

I scanned through the Herald King Decal offerings and I didn't find a set of hopper decals but there might be something in their gondola decals that would work. Might check with them.

http://heraldkingdecals.com/Gondolas.html

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Hunter, James R. <jhunter@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wed, Apr 6, 2011 7:24 am
Subject: [STMFC] LV decals




Guys,

Does anyone know of a good source for Lehigh Valley decals? I've got a
Stewart fish-belly side hopper that I'd like to paint for Lehigh
Valley. Thanks.

Jim Hunter







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


Re: boxcar design evolution

David
 

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
It appears that the two design philosophies coexisted for years without either proving to be truly superior.
Speaking to the USRA in particular, I believe the use of pressed shapes was driven by the cost and demand for rolled shapes during the war. Once the stamping dies were set up for volume production, pressed shapes could be made from small sections of sheet steel which were easier to obtain in a timely manner.

David Thompson


Re: boxcar design evolution

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Pieter_Roos" <pieter_roos@...> wrote:

OTOH, hoppers and gondolas, both composite and all steel, continued to use more specialized shapes in their framing. The early PRR single sheathed designs (R7 and X23) also used special pressed members, so USRA was clearly not the first.
But then again, the ARA reverted to standard mill shapes for the stakes in MOST of the ARA standard twin, triple, and quad hoppers.


The USRA single sheathed design would appear to have been a step forward in height, as the 1920's ARA standard called for scaling the IH back by 6 inches, with the original USRA size as an option.
There was a reasonable amount of resistance to the 9'-0" IH of the USRA cars as being "too big", wasteful since with most loads the cars would reach their load limit before they cubed out. Indeed, the ARA standard cars of 1923 reverted to the formerly common 8'-7" IH, although they retained the use of purpose designed pressings for posts and diagonals.

The same debate about mill shapes vs. pressings continued in the steel car era; cars built with structural shapes for posts tend to have a single line of rivets on the lap seam of the side sheets; those with double rows have pressed "hat" section posts. Meanwhile, coal hoppers swung back to using pressed posts in the exterior stake designs of the fifties. Ultimately, pressings won out... ALL the modern exterior post cars of recent years have pressed posts, although the fabricating techniques are vastly different from the cars of the teens. It did, however, take a good fifty years for the design features that make pressing superior to all come together. Contrast this with pressed steel ends, or roofs for that matter, which essentially replaced the earlier way of doing things in a brief five or ten years.

Dennis


Re: boxcar design evolution

Pieter Roos
 

It would seem that some 1920's cars were built with the USRA type pressed frame members, but many were not. PRR added reinforcing "boots" on the ends of the framing on many X26 USRA designed cars, and IIRC D&H and some others actually replaced the original framing with 'Z' section material during rebuilding. The WWII "War Emergency" designs also seem to have reverted to standard steel shapes. These events could suggest that the USRA type members were not wholly successful. At least by the 1940's it would appear that standard shapes had won out.

OTOH, hoppers and gondolas, both composite and all steel, continued to use more specialized shapes in their framing. The early PRR single sheathed designs (R7 and X23) also used special pressed members, so USRA was clearly not the first.

The USRA single sheathed design would appear to have been a step forward in height, as the 1920's ARA standard called for scaling the IH back by 6 inches, with the original USRA size as an option.

Pieter Roos
Connecticut

--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
<SNIP>
Where are you saying these fit in the evolutionary chain, Rob? The first steel frame boxcars used stock mill shapes, either Z, C, or L section, while some of the last single sheathed composite cars did likewise. The cars with the pressed framing fit in the middle, a good idea that came... and went.

The argument for purpose designed pressings is they make more efficient use of material, although I don't think the car designs that made use of them were appreciably lighter.

The argument against purpose designed pressings was that they were difficult to repair; the railroad would have to make custom pressing dies to make replacement parts, whereas mill shapes were available off the shelf, so to speak. Late in the cars lives it was found that the pressings trapped water and tended to rust out near the bottom, but I don't think this happened fast enough to really have any impact on the debate; the cars lasted through a reasonable service life without major problems. Anyway, cars with Z section framing also could have problems with cracking of the posts and braces due to repeated stress reversals in the truss members.

It appears that the two design philosophies coexisted for years without either proving to be truly superior.

Dennis


Re: Baltimore and Ohio hopper cars...

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Ben--

Thanks for the info.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

I wrote:
"As Rich Orr suggested, see my article in the May/June 2009 issue of The B&O
Modeler for more information on the B&O hopper fleet."

Trying to multitask too much at 0600 - correct issue is May/June *2006*. 
Apologies for any confusion.


Ben Hom


Re: Georgia RR decals

tomedill@frontier.com
 

Does anyone know of a source for white Georgia RR decals for the Tichy steel outside braced boxcar? As I understand it the silver paint scheme was not instituted until the late 1950's so not appropriate for era I model-1950-52. thanks, Tom Dill


Re: boxcar design evolution

rwitt_2000
 



Rob Kirkham wrote:

A while ago I was able to make a trip into Sandon BC and take photos
and
measurements of the freight cars there. Now I'm writing a
description of
two of the cars. They were from the CPR 230000-233499 series
composite
boxcars - boxcars very much like the USRA design. And as I write
about
them, I wanted to say that when the cars were built in 1920-21, they
were
more or less the best boxcar design on the market.

But I wonder if that is really accurate? For example, would the
similar
cars used on other railways that used Z bracing (rather than the
pressed
steel shapes on the USRA and CP cars) be considered better or poorer
- or
was the difference inconsequential from the point of view of boxcar
design
evolution? Meanwhile, was there anything else on the market yet
that was
clearly superior?
--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" Dennis Storzek replied:

Where are you saying these fit in the evolutionary chain, Rob? The
first steel frame boxcars used stock mill shapes, either Z, C, or L
section, while some of the last single sheathed composite cars did
likewise. The cars with the pressed framing fit in the middle, a good
idea that came... and went.

The argument for purpose designed pressings is they make more
efficient use of material, although I don't think the car designs that
made use of them were appreciably lighter.

The argument against purpose designed pressings was that they were
difficult to repair; the railroad would have to make custom pressing
dies to make replacement parts, whereas mill shapes were available off
the shelf, so to speak. Late in the cars lives it was found that the
pressings trapped water and tended to rust out near the bottom, but I
don't think this happened fast enough to really have any impact on the
debate; the cars lasted through a reasonable service life without major
problems. Anyway, cars with Z section framing also could have problems
with cracking of the posts and braces due to repeated stress reversals
in the truss members.

It appears that the two design philosophies coexisted for years
without either proving to be truly superior.
==========================

Looking at the the entire North American boxcar fleet we have the
eastern railroads, PRR, NYC and B&O that adopted the all steel designs
and were not large users of single-sheathed designs. So one could ask
the question was the all-steel designs superior to the single-sheathed
designs. Obviously for the mid-western, western and Canadian railroads
the single-sheathed design apparently better met their requirements.

Bob Witt


Re: boxcar design evolution

Robert kirkham
 

That is part of what I was wondering about Dennis. I don't know where to slot these cars (or the USRA cars) as of 1920/21.

Regarding the steel used for framing the sides, CP had over 20000 fowler cars on the roster at that time - all with Z bracing. But the CNR was continuing to build similar cars with Z bracing after the CPR 230000 series cars were built. That could mean nothing in terms of design evolution - the CNR was building fowler cars into the early 1920s as well. So it is possible the purpose-built pressed steel framing shape was considered an advance.

At the same time I see your point about repairs being more difficult. I have seen the weld lines where these shapes have cracked and were repaired. My sense of it is the repairs were done after the cars were moved into company service, but I have no data on that subject.

So to sum up what you are saying, the pressed steel braces amount to a difference - not necessarily an advance.

Alternatively, the USRA design cars could be described as an advancement based on size - but I don't know that they were the largest cars around for 1920, or merely a step in that direction. I take it from what I have read that there were not a great many boxcars built to larger specs for some time, but am not sure where exactly to place the USRA design. perhaps just part of a trend, but at least a step forward?

And of course there is the composite construction versus all steel construction. CPR had one all steel car on the roster in 1919 - CP 249000. Must have been an experiment. So the USRA style composite cars are not an advance in comparison to those.

Are there any other considerations one should apply in making that assessment?

Rob Kirkham


--------------------------------------------------
From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 7:30 AM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: boxcar design evolution



--- In STMFC@..., "Rob Kirkham" <rdkirkham@...> wrote:

A while ago I was able to make a trip into Sandon BC and take photos and
measurements of the freight cars there. Now I'm writing a description of
two of the cars. They were from the CPR 230000-233499 series composite
boxcars - boxcars very much like the USRA design. And as I write about
them, I wanted to say that when the cars were built in 1920-21, they were
more or less the best boxcar design on the market.

But I wonder if that is really accurate? For example, would the similar
cars used on other railways that used Z bracing (rather than the pressed
steel shapes on the USRA and CP cars) be considered better or poorer - or
was the difference inconsequential from the point of view of boxcar design
evolution? Meanwhile, was there anything else on the market yet that was
clearly superior?

Rob Kirkham
Where are you saying these fit in the evolutionary chain, Rob? The first steel frame boxcars used stock mill shapes, either Z, C, or L section, while some of the last single sheathed composite cars did likewise. The cars with the pressed framing fit in the middle, a good idea that came... and went.

The argument for purpose designed pressings is they make more efficient use of material, although I don't think the car designs that made use of them were appreciably lighter.

The argument against purpose designed pressings was that they were difficult to repair; the railroad would have to make custom pressing dies to make replacement parts, whereas mill shapes were available off the shelf, so to speak. Late in the cars lives it was found that the pressings trapped water and tended to rust out near the bottom, but I don't think this happened fast enough to really have any impact on the debate; the cars lasted through a reasonable service life without major problems. Anyway, cars with Z section framing also could have problems with cracking of the posts and braces due to repeated stress reversals in the truss members.

It appears that the two design philosophies coexisted for years without either proving to be truly superior.

Dennis



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

Yahoo! Groups Links




Re: boxcar design evolution

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Rob Kirkham" <rdkirkham@...> wrote:

A while ago I was able to make a trip into Sandon BC and take photos and
measurements of the freight cars there. Now I'm writing a description of
two of the cars. They were from the CPR 230000-233499 series composite
boxcars - boxcars very much like the USRA design. And as I write about
them, I wanted to say that when the cars were built in 1920-21, they were
more or less the best boxcar design on the market.

But I wonder if that is really accurate? For example, would the similar
cars used on other railways that used Z bracing (rather than the pressed
steel shapes on the USRA and CP cars) be considered better or poorer - or
was the difference inconsequential from the point of view of boxcar design
evolution? Meanwhile, was there anything else on the market yet that was
clearly superior?

Rob Kirkham
Where are you saying these fit in the evolutionary chain, Rob? The first steel frame boxcars used stock mill shapes, either Z, C, or L section, while some of the last single sheathed composite cars did likewise. The cars with the pressed framing fit in the middle, a good idea that came... and went.

The argument for purpose designed pressings is they make more efficient use of material, although I don't think the car designs that made use of them were appreciably lighter.

The argument against purpose designed pressings was that they were difficult to repair; the railroad would have to make custom pressing dies to make replacement parts, whereas mill shapes were available off the shelf, so to speak. Late in the cars lives it was found that the pressings trapped water and tended to rust out near the bottom, but I don't think this happened fast enough to really have any impact on the debate; the cars lasted through a reasonable service life without major problems. Anyway, cars with Z section framing also could have problems with cracking of the posts and braces due to repeated stress reversals in the truss members.

It appears that the two design philosophies coexisted for years without either proving to be truly superior.

Dennis


LV decals

naptownprr
 

Guys,

Does anyone know of a good source for Lehigh Valley decals? I've got a Stewart fish-belly side hopper that I'd like to paint for Lehigh Valley. Thanks.

Jim Hunter


Re: Missouri Pacific Boxcar

jerryglow2
 

The distinctive fishbelly underbelly underfrmes were used for a caboose rebuilding program starting in the late 40's and into the 50's resulting in what became the de facto standard steel caboose of the next decade or two.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "mopacfirst" <ron.merrick@...> wrote:

This is one of a large number of single-sheathed cars which were upgraded to all-steel by MoPac at the DeSoto (MO) shop in the early 1950s. The original ends remained. Some cars had the Murphy as shown here, while others had inverted Dreadnaught. Sides are ten-panel, and the same height as the original. Roof is diagonal panel. The original cars came from several different series built in the twenties.

These small-capacity cars were intended for services such as the grain rush on light-rail branch lines, or other non-high-cube applications. Some were designated for LCL service, and during the rebuild they got a special blue and gray paint scheme with yellow door. None were ever in express service.

By the mid-sixties, their small size made them obsolete so they were converted in large numbers to MOW service, mostly tool or storage cars. Many had a wooden step added below the door, or other modifications to make them easier to get into -- this one apparently did not. Some others were converted to bunk cars with the addition of windows and even an end door. Most were never repainted, but simply had the road number painted out and a new X series MOW number applied. A few got complete, plain, repaints with minimal stenciling.

In drier parts of the MoPac system, some survived with paint and stenciling in excellent condition until recent years. Most of them that were on active track are gone now, replaced by 50' cars with roller bearing trucks.

Ron Merrick


--- In STMFC@..., Ricky Gilmore <x_white.bear_x@> wrote:

The Missouri Pacific boxcar photos are up. They can be seen here.http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/photos/album/619899423/pic/list




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

96901 - 96920 of 195634