Date   

Re: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Ian Cranstone
 

Scott, here’s a photo of a car from this group taken in 1965, which hopefully will answer your question. Aside from the paint scheme, it doesn’t look like this car has changed much over the yeras.

Ian Cranstone

Osgoode, Ontario, Canada

lamontc@...

http://freightcars.nakina.net




On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:21 AM, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:

I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald


Re: rerquest

 

Bill – That’s the old page.  Let me find a screen shot…..

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 

From: Bill Welch
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 4:35 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] rerquest

 

Double checking Al, is the attached your new page? It is not as you describe.

Bill Welch

 


Re: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Pierre Oliver
 

Well it took me this long to find the binder with the articles on the Canadian 8 hatch reefers. (If I ever get truly organized...)

From what I can determine, the side ladder would be an 8 rung ladder with the sill step riveted to the ladder stiles. Des PLaines offers a very nice plastic ladder that replicates this look.

Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 2/05/19 9:21 a.m., Scott wrote:

I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald


Re: CN 8 Hatch reefer question.

Allan Smith
 

RMC Sept 1995, Dec 1995,Jan 1996 and Feb 1996 Have everything I think you will need to know about the Canadian Eight Hatch Reefers, including drawings and photos of the cars you are building.

Al Smith
Sonora Ca

On ‎Tuesday‎, ‎February‎ ‎5‎, ‎2019‎ ‎06‎:‎21‎:‎51‎ ‎AM‎ ‎PST, Scott <repairman87@...> wrote:


I am building the Funaro 8 hatch reefer (slowly).  It is going to be a 6-series with car numbers 210300-210599.  Does anybody know what kind of stirrup should be under the ladder on the car sides?  The drawing in the instructions looks like a straight stirrup with the top spread a little more.  I found a picture of a 5 series and it looks like a double angled stirrup but not 100% because of poor picture quality.  It appears to mount to the bottom of the car.  Does anybody have a definite answer?

Thanks
Scott McDonald


Re: Throwback Tuesday: MDC "Old Timer" Freight Cars

Patrick Wade
 

I've taken one of the old MDC diners, plated over the upper windows, repainted it and it is now part of my Santa Fe work train.

Pat Wade
Santa Barbara, CA

On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 7:14 AM Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:
Model Die Casting ad, January 1969 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman.


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 

Ben,

Very true - "it's far more impressive to show photos of tanks than trucks", especially during WWII, although down at Anniston Army depot the Army built large shelters specifically to conceal tanks ready for shipment by rail. The rail head was visible from public lands, and I have been told that the Army was concerned that German spies might be studying tanks being shipped to the front, hence they kept them inside very large and long Quonset hut like sheds.

And, sadly, professionally, "Logistics never gets any respect", may be even more true today...

BTW, for the military modelers that frequent this group, there is an a modest collection of foreign armor from many eras at the same location at Anniston - just rusting away - inside the fence, but visible in Google maps/earth.

Dave Evans


Re: Military loads.

Bill McClure
 

The esteemed Ben Hom wrote:
Remember the underlying purpose of most of these wartime photos - it's far more impressive to show photos of tanks than trucks.  Logistics never gets any respect, but always remember that amateurs talk tactics, professionals discuss logistics.

To his point, I had the pleasure of hunting with Gen. Swartzkopf in the mid-1990s and over an adult beverage he told our group that the key to the Gulf War success was the Brigadier General who ran his logistics. Forgotten his name, but every morning he held a standing staff meeting wherein decision items had to be on a 3x5 card. He would run through the deck of cards in minutes and the force kept moving forward.

By way of freight car content, I can only say in 60 years at this I have no idea how many kits of all stripes I have built, and I have a stash of 20 or so resin kits in line. I have never posted, but I am a loyal lurker.
Bill McClure


Re: Painting Brass

Michael Gross
 

Thanks for sharing this, Steve.  Most informative.

Cheers!

Michael Gross
Pasadena, CA


Re: Military loads.

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

Jeff,
I agree.  Company, battery or troop movement would be rate.  Battalion or higher more likely.  It is, just as you say, necessary to have a huge number of military models and flat cars for a battalion or larger move.  Company level is simply more doable, not more likely.
Gene Green


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 
Edited

Paul,

Great photos - thank-you.

BTW, these are by Myron Davis for Life Magazine in May 1943 - it was clearly a unit move to a training area, I believe somewhere in the Southwest. Over 30 photos of this move are in the Life Archives, at least a few after unloading. SP rolling stock dominates, but there are two PRR Gons, at least one MILW box car, and some other cars where the heralds can not be made out.

The unit had a few small artillery pieces - if I recall they are a smaller caliber that was quickly deemed ineffective for use against the axis - by 1943 I believe a large caliber gun was being shipped to units overseas... what they trained with was a good gun for training - why waste the latest model for US training when better weapons were desperately needed in North Africa (at that time in the war.)

I suspect one way to distinguish unit training moves versus export moves is the presence of guards on the train. Once a unit signed for equipment, they made sure no-one took any of it (there are pictures of the train underway in the Life archives - every flat car had a soldier assigned to it - often riding in an open jeep - some with the windscreen up, others with the windscreen down....)

Conversely, security of new equipment for export was probably the responsibility of the RR, and monitored by the crews and RR police.

Dave Evans


Re: Military loads.

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

USA reporting marks were used in Germany and Korea.  That I saw first-hand.  USAX was used in CONUS.
Gene Green


Re: Military loads.

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

A lot of the Studebakers were sent to Russia, so many, in fact, that "Studebaker" entered their vocabulary.  I watch lots of Russian movies about World War Two (the Great Patriotic War for them) and see the preserved Studebakers in the Russian movies and hear the actors refer to the "Studebakers."
Gosh, maybe I am a war pig after all.
Gene Green


Re: Military loads.

Jeffrey White
 

A tank company, rifle company or artillery battery would seldom be moved by itself.  The battalion is the basic element.  If a single company/battery was moving from one post to another for training or to a POE it would most likely have support elements from the battalion attached to it.  Guard and reserve units usually only kept a small portion of their tracked vehicles at home station, just the minimum amount needed to train on and the rest of the heavy equipment would be kept at the military installation they usually used for annual training.

I'm also modeling a military movement on my 1955 railroad with the roco flats and M47s.  I'm still trying to come up with the right mix for a believable movement.  I would like to move a battalion but that's a lot of tanks and vehicles.

Jeff White US Army 6 Dec 74 - 1 Nov 2003

Alma, IL                                           

On 2/5/2019 10:48 AM, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io wrote:
One thing to keep in mind in this regard is how military units were organized. While there may have been many more trucks than tanks, trucks tended to be concentrated in logistics units rather than combat units, so there weren't many trucks in a tank company. I am modeling a tank company (using Roco M-47 tanks) loaded on 11 Roco flatcars, plus additional railroad owned flatcars, using the following, which is from a 1953 table of organization and equipment I found on-line:

Headquarters Section: two tanks, one jeep
Admin, Mess, & Supply Section: two 6x6 trucks with trailers, one jeep
Maintenance Section: one M-32 tank recovery vehicle, one M-3 half-track with trailer, one jeep with trailer
4 tank platoons, each with: five tanks, one jeep

That's 22 tanks, seven jeeps, two 6x6's, one half-track, and one tank recovery vehicle.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: devansprr <devans1@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 8:12 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

If your era and/or location "justifies" military loads, one thing to be careful of is the"distribution" of military equipment. During WWII, for every Sherman tank manufactured, ten "Deuce and a Half" 6x6 (type CCKW) trucks were manufactured. In today's army, I believe the ratio of "Tactical" vehicles (generally vehicles with tires) to "Combat" vehicles (generally vehicles with tracks), is over ten to one, and that was also true in WWII. I have not investigated other periods, but I suspect the ratio was about the same.

Unfortunately I determine this after accumulating a bunch of Roco Sherman tanks and tank destroyers for use as WWII loads. Roco did offer the CCKW trucks in several styles. But there are big model gaps - for every Sherman built, three 1.5 ton 4X4 type G506 trucks were built (looks like a '41 Chevy bed truck), and four higher capacity 6x6 trucks were built for every Sherman (Corbitt/Brockway/Reo up to 6 tons - Roco made one of these, but they are rare.)

This highlights the folly of modeling WWII traffic from pictures - pictures exist of strings of Sherman and Lee tanks, Higgins boats, half-tracks, etc. but the US was producing 500 2.5 ton 6x6 trucks and 150 1.5 ton 4x4 trucks - every day - They weren't driven to the ports - why no photos of strings of those loads? Probably because they were too common (and they didn't look military enough?)...

Dave Evans


Re: Military loads.

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

I took a jillion slides of US military equipment in Germany.  Later I donated all those slides to a German modeling magazine.  I regretted that decision ever since.

Gene Green


Re: Military loads.

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

My goof. Thanks for the correction.

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Feb 5, 2019, at 1:06 PM, Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

Dan Mitchell wrote:
<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>

"The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol."

Not the greatest photo, but that's not the bursting bomb and crossed cannons of the Ordnance Corps (no "i" - you're blowing things up, not writing tickets), but the winged foot on ship's wheel of the Transportation Corps.


Ben Hom
<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>


Re: Military loads.

Benjamin Hom
 

Dan Mitchell wrote:

"The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol."

Not the greatest photo, but that's not the bursting bomb and crossed cannons of the Ordnance Corps (no "i" - you're blowing things up, not writing tickets), but the winged foot on ship's wheel of the Transportation Corps.


Ben Hom


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 

Agree


Re: Military loads.

devansprr
 

Not faulty Dan - I was specific about export moves - there are WWII photos of strings of brand new tanks (Sherman and Lee), half tracks, and Higgins boats headed for the ports. This equipment was not assigned and distributed to units as they trained in the US - they typically trained on older and near-obsolete, and near-worn out equipment. I have lots of pictures of Unit moves as troop trains with their assigned distribution of equipment. I suspect during WWII those movements were a fraction of the export traffic.

When factories were producing 850 4x4 and 6x6 trucks every day (just for US use), probably 90% went direct for export - straight to east coast and west coast ports, I suspect there were some solid strings of them. Life has one such photo in its collection somewhere out west. One... I have seen a photo of a solid string of half-tracks in mint condition - at least one-half of the average daily production of half-tracks. I am merely pointing out that photographs for the era of this list - at least into the early 50's, were an expensive hobby, and people did not waste film on what they saw everyday. They photographed the unusual. Even with "free" film in digital cameras, that still happens today (I suspect that photos of the NS heritage fleet may approach the number of photos of NS locomotives in the regular paint scheme...)

I am merely pointing out that the same debate about freight car distribution (e.g everyone modeling through WWII needs at least one PRR X-29) applies to military vehicles for at least WWII.

As for me, I probably need to sell some Shermans, and especially tank "destroyers" (only 8,000 built), and find a lot of models to represent the 200,000 6x6's of 4 or more tons (so bigger than the infamous CCKW deuce and a half...)

Dave Evans



Re: Military loads.

Paul Deis
 

An example of tie downs and blocking


Re: Military loads.

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

For anyone seeking to model this, let me add that the Roco M-103 is a poor rendition. The hull isn’t too bad, though crude, but the turret is AWFUL! The side profile is similar, but the prototype turet is much wider, especiallty in the back. The turret is positively HUGE! So, at best, the Roco M-103 is a starting point to a good model.

Sadly, the 1/35 scale M-103 by DML is also all loused up, maybe even worse. They tried to use their existing M-48 hull and stretching it. It did not work … the proportions are all wrong. True that the M-103 is the big brother of the M-48. They shared many components, but the hulls were DIFFERENT. The DML turret is also much too blunt in the front, and situated wrongly on the hull. A mess, really. DML sells two versions, one with the later Diesel engine conversion rear “deck” that was used by the Marines. Sadly both use the same incorrect hull and turret.

Here’s a link to my sratchbuilt 1/35 model of the M-103 … <  http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmm103.htm..>

Dan Mitchell
==========

On Feb 5, 2019, at 12:43 PM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

<tank_t43_zd_418.jpg>

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

Anyone have a better photo of this?

Dan MItchell
==========


On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.

I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …

1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.

2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.

3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.

In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.

Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.

Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.

Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik



31761 - 31780 of 193641