Jim
Thanks for sharing, great illustrations on both wood and paper grain doors.

Charlie Duckworth

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:

thank you clark. they seem pretty well out of my era, sadly. the one i
own will probably have to sit on a siding OOS.

They did run with the D&RGW well into the 1950s, though, and there are
other cars you can model using the Gold Coast model as a basis, so it may
not be a complete 'loss'.

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC

For a summary the USRA boxcars and clones (but no photos) there are two Excel spreadsheets in the files section of this list:
- USRA DS boxcars.xls compiled by Ben Hom
- USRA SS boxcars.xls compiled by Larry Kline

There are numerous boxcar articles from Railmodel Journal at Trainlife.com:
http://www.trainlife.com/magazines

You can find the articles using the Kalmbach magazine index at:
http://trc.trains.com/magazineindex/
A search for Railmodel Journal articles by Richard Hendrickson and Ed Hawkins is a good place to start. Using advanced search and the search strings "Hendrickson boxcar" and "Hawkins boxcar" returns 98 articles which give pretty comprehensive coverage of the boxcars relevant to this list.

Larry Kline

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

--- In STMFC@..., "Benjamin Scanlon" wrote:

I am wondering what sort of roof the 'true Fowler' C&NW cars had? Or for that matter the M&StL 'clones'.

I am also interested to know when these cars left service.

Regards

Ben

The M&StL clones (18000 series) had 15 roof 'ribs' and according to Gene Green's records were retired in 1949.
The CNW Fowlers bought used by the M&StL in 1942 (51500 series) also had 15. These cars were retired in 1951.
Clark Propst

thank you clark. they seem pretty well out of my era, sadly. the one i own will probably have to sit on a siding OOS.

regards, ben

--- In STMFC@..., "Benjamin Scanlon" wrote:

I am wondering what sort of roof the 'true Fowler' C&NW cars had? Or for that matter the M&StL 'clones'.

I am also interested to know when these cars left service.

Regards

Ben

The M&StL clones (18000 series) had 15 roof 'ribs' and according to Gene Green's records were retired in 1949.
The CNW Fowlers bought used by the M&StL in 1942 (51500 series) also had 15. These cars were retired in 1951.
Clark Propst

The article on converting a San Juan kit of a D&RGW Fowler clone to the Rock Island version notes that a new roof with 18 mullions is needed for the RI car, rather than the 15 on the D&RGW car.

http://www.oscalemag.com/wordpress/building-the-rock-island%E2%80%99s-fowler-clone-boxcar/

I am wondering what sort of roof the 'true Fowler' C&NW cars had? Or for that matter the M&StL 'clones'.

I am also interested to know when these cars left service.

Regards

Ben

Brad Andonian wrote:

Thank you, what are other appropriate options? Can you post an image!?

I don't have rights to post such images on the web, but I can send you one off-list. What roads would you prefer?

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

--- In STMFC@..., "al_brown03" wrote:

GA 19300-19449 are 1924 ARA single-sheathed boxcars, with seven-panel Pratt-truss sides and straight underframes. A couple of published photos:

GA 19428: RP CYC 18 p 42
GA 19443: Hanson, "History of the Georgia Railroad", p 39

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

thank you al. i've been puzzling over what this car was since i got bob hanson's book a week ago.

GA 19300-19449 are 1924 ARA single-sheathed boxcars, with seven-panel Pratt-truss sides and straight underframes. A couple of published photos:

GA 19428: RP CYC 18 p 42
GA 19443: Hanson, "History of the Georgia Railroad", p 39

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

Tony

Thank you, what are other appropriate options? Can you post an image!?

Thx
Brad Andonian

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:
"if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd
be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet,
and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all."

Two articles to get you started are "Boxcar Fleet of the Fifties" by
John Nehrich in the March 1986 issue of Model Railroader,
and "Modeler's Guide to Steel Boxcars" by Tony Koester in the May 2006
issue of Model Railroader. These aren't comprehensive (John's article
can use some hindsight over what we've learned over the past 25+ years,
and Tony's article is a bit too general for my taste), but as I said,
it'll give you a place to get started.


Ben Hom

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

But as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, you seriously
muddied the waters by not pointing out the differences between the
pressed steel truss members of the true USRA SS boxcar and the
Z-section truss members of the other prototypes.

Yes - this is something that I did overlook, and I'm ready to admit that
error.

"Minute" details are anything but. The differences between ends,
roofs, doors, car height, and centersills may be subtle, but they are
defintely there, and are especially noticeable in context.

<snip>

I agree completely - and never have I claimed otherwise! In fact I
wouldn't even call those "minute" differences, but significant ones
(though, of course, on a scale; a composite end is completely different
from a Dreadnaught end, but a W-post is only minutely different from a
square post...)

These were exactly the differences which I went out of the way to point
out in all my descriptives, be it about single-sheathed cars with
Howe-truss bracing on 6 panels, or about the 1937 AAR cars, or whatever.
Doors, ends, roofs, etc. Because these are the things you see, that are
immediately obvious even on a model. Differences such as this I never
glossed over; what I viewed as not entirely relevant was requisite
terminology, in the sense of, the name isn't important, so long as you
recognise that while a B-50-14 and a USRA SS car are *broadly similar* in
appearance, they have different ends, underframe, etc., and these
differences are essential in making a presentable model. Even if the
(minor) dimensional differences aren't reflected on a model, representing
these differences is what (IMO) will make a model be a believable
representation of a B-50-14 or an X26 or whatever.

And I think that's the first step that needs to be taken - getting
modellers new to this aspect of the hobby to consider these differences as
significant enough to recreate!

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC

PS: All that said, I think that progress is being made in TT scale... keep
in mind that a lot of TTers don't really care about such differences, or,
didn't care until it was pointed out. So it's kinda like, we're still
trying to get over the Athearn Blue Box mentality of a "steel boxcar is a
steel boxcar, a single-sheathed car is a single-sheathed car". And that
mentality is still pretty deeply in there, though it's been getting better
over the 6 years that I've now been involved with North American prototype
TT scale.

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work
to look like anything american.

I'd kinda disagree there.

As the model is, apart from the ladders (which are disappointing) and the
trucks (not entirely sure why Nikolai opted to put arch bars in the kit,
but), it's pretty decently accurate for Canadian National 464000-464999
and 500500-503499 series cars, for Algoma Central 3101-3200 series cars,
and for Rutland's single car #7999 (which was an ex-CN car). Though true,
those are Canadian and not American, but that still counts as North
American railroading.

Then, there may be some minor dimensional differences, it wouldn't take
*too* much work to make a composite-ended B-50-13 or B-50-14 using the
RailTT model. And SP and family had lots of those, and pretty much anyone
modelling within the scope of this list can easily justify having one or
several of these.

True, it would take rather more work to make a good representation of a
true USRA car out of it (the simplest way would probably be to use the old
Christoph 5/5/5 ends and Gold Coast's 40' underframe), but even that is
certainly doable, and the quality of the model is quite good (I'm thinking
here specifically of the planks - the wood effect is very sharp), so I
still think it's a very useful addition to what we have available in TT
scale, and certainly isn't something to be discounted at all.

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC

On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Brad Andonian <cereshill@...> wrote:

Rich,

The USRA model is Pac Ltd 100 Single sheathed outside braced. USRA 40'


The UP car is at work; cannot check today. I believe that i have confused you guys---I have two cars that I am inquiring about.

Per the listing I have for Pac Ltd:

The UP car was Pac Ltd Pl-3100
* I have notes that is it UP #182500 B-50-18. I am wishing to confirm this is correct.

That's easy to determine, Brad. The single B-50-18 class car was 13'10-1/2" from rails to the top of the running board, while several thousand later UP steel sheathed AAR box cars (classes B-50-19. B-50-21, B-50-24, B-50-27) were 14'7-1/2" - a 9" difference that's easily measured in O scale.

Richard Hendrickson

Frank Valoczy wrote:
"What I was trying to say was, that using the model available from
RailTT (which is by rights a model of CN 500500-503499 series cars), a
presentable model of a USRA SS car could be made - swap out the
fishbelly-silled underframe, change the ends, and you've got a
reasonable model that is considerably closer to accurate than just
slapping decals on the model as-is and calling it a model of an X26."

But as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, you seriously
muddied the waters by not pointing out the differences between the
pressed steel truss members of the true USRA SS boxcar and the
Z-section truss members of the other prototypes.


"Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a
different definition of "different" than the average person,
including the average model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get
into analysing the more minute details, the easier it is to lose
sight of the fact that to an untrained (or even an in-training) eye,
a 1937 car is pretty hard to distinguish from a 1944 car."

"Minute" details are anything but. The differences between ends,
roofs, doors, car height, and centersills may be subtle, but they are
defintely there, and are especially noticeable in context. Rolling
stock models really don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in the
greater whole of a layout, and to really capture the look of the
steam to diesel transition era, you have to capture these
differences. Most modelers don't take a completely scientific
approach towards this, but the majority of modelers instinctively
know when something looks right for a given era (McClleland's V&O,
even thirty years ago, is a great example).


Ben Hom

Anthony Thompson wrote:

Well, Frank, here's what you DID say: "RailTT's model is the CN
version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill". I'm
sorry, "clone" does not mean "sort of the same general appearance." I
understand your point, that you are identifying GENERAL similarities,
but in that context, the word "clone" (your word) is entirely
inappropriate. Otherwise you foster FURTHER confusion among those
reading the list.

That's a fair point. I *did* say that... because that's what I understood
the word to mean, in my previous encounters with it.

What, then, *is* an appropriate, but nevertheless "catch-all", word/phrase?

Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different
definition of "different" than the average person, including the average
model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more
minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an
untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to
distinguish from a 1944 car.

Quite true, but adding to the confusion by NOT distinguishing
among similar but DIFFERENT cars does not help the problem. You're
right that this list tends to the sophisticated side of freight
car information. But I believe the way to move those "untrained
eyes" forward is to give them the RIGHT information and explain
why, not to gloss over differences and, in effect, say that
various 40-foot single-sheathed cars are "pretty similar" or
"kinda all the same."

This is also a very fair point.

However - to try to defend myself a little bit - I'd like to put it into a
bit of context.

The point of the big descriptive list I made was, "this is the model we
have available - let's see what we can do with it", and from there I went
on to describe what the model is accurate for as-is, and then what can be
done with it with modifications, pointing out the modifications that would
be needed to make an XY&Z RR 1000-1999 series car.

The way I presented this info, I tried to do it TT-specific, and assuming
no detailed knowledge of the subject (beyond the basic "immediately
obvious" things, e.g. Howe truss vs Pratt truss being 'obviously
different'), and I tried to keep it informative without being overly
verbose or going too far into technical language that'd make it difficult
to read for an outsider. Kinda like how if you're writing about, say,
English grammar, if you're writing for a general audience, you have to
write differently than if you're writing a paper for a peer-reviewed
journal.

In a summary form, my premise was "this is a group of cars that is broadly
similar in appearance; here is how they differ from each other".

I agree with you that the details are important - all the details. But I
also think it's better to make introductions using broad, general terms.
If I meet someone just getting into the hobby, just starting to learn
about the basic differences between various boxcars (and I don't think I'm
too far wrong in saying that for the bulk of hobbyists, the differences
between a '37 car and a '44 car or between a USRA SS car and a B-50-14
aren't nearly as important (or as noticeable) as the difference between a
'37 car and a B-50-14), I've found that you often even have to point out
the most glaring difference between a USRA SS car and a War Emergency
boxcar (namely the truss arrangement).

So, in my experience, I find it more effective to use generalisations
first, whether the subject is freight cars or grammar; better first for
the learner to become comfortable with regular verbs (including mistakes
they will make trying to apply regular forms to irregular verbs), before
starting into irregular verbs and how they behave, than to give them a
daunting pile of information that may actually make it more difficult to
sort through. That's what I tried to do - but of course, that's not to say
I necessarily succeeded.

Talking about this makes me curious now, as to how the rest of you handle
this question. How do you start explaining things to someone who is
interested in modelling accurately, but essentially completely unversed in
the various details of freight cars?

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC

On Jan 5, 2013, at 2:36 PM, lnbill <fgexbill@...> wrote:

The Clinchfield's 50-ton SS USRA cars also survived as built, albeit w/AB brake conversion, into the 1950s with CC&O reporting marks.

Bill, I was just citing examples, not trying to compile a complete list. Other (smaller) RRs whose USRA 50 ton cars also survived for a long time as built, IIRC, included RF&P, MEC, CNJ. But my point remains that it's impossible to say for sure without knowing the date being modeled.


Richard Hendrickson

--- In STMFC@..., "Frank Valoczy" wrote:

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?

much of my data is from frank's postings on the TTnut list, but the confusion re non existent west point route USRA boxcars is down to me generalising. i meant georgia RR cars.

i am interested in the war emergency cars too, but no confusion there, i've realised they are different. my source of info on those is the sunshine data sheets for their kits. i would like to know more, particularly about the georgia/WPR war emergency cars which i understand were part of a run of 10' IH cars done for south eastern RRs, rather than the 10'6" of most others.

on TTnut i think there has been a bit of confusing ACF 8'6" IH howe truss cars in particular, with fowler clones.

i do not think the gold coast fowler clone boxcar is any kind of substitute for these cars, really. inside height is about 6" lower and the roof pitch is too shallow, which combine to create quite a different look.

frank has identified a couple of other cars from MONON and MILW as fowler clones, and they look more like the gold coast car.

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work to look like anything american.

if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet, and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all.

regards, ben

Brad Andonian wrote:

The UP car was Pac Ltd Pl-3100
* I have notes that is it UP #182500 B-50-18. I am wishing to confirm this is correct.

That's the right car number. UP owned just ONE of these cars and that's the one. Your call, of course, but I believe that to model rarities just complicates the problem of creating reality in modeling.

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

After a wait of several years, I am offering the Red Caboose 70 Ton truck to the group at $3.90/pair without wheel sets. I do have wheels sets available ( code 88 only )@ $2.75 extra/pair of trucks. Postage will be added and for Paypay, their extra fees will be added.

These trucks were originally done for the RC SP F-70-7 flatcar and other SP cars used these trucks also, although spring packs varied on some. As Richard Hendrickson noted:"the Barber S-2 was one of the two truck designs that were widely used from the end of WW II through the '50s (the other being the ASF A-3), so the 70 ton Barber S-2 was applied to many cars built for many different railroads, chiefly (but not exclusively) flat cars, mill gondolas, large hoppers, and covered hoppers. Later in the '50s, they were also applied to a growing number of 70 ton box, auto, insulated box, and mechanical refrigerator cars. As Ron Merrick observes, spring package arrangements varied".

Andy Carlson offered these trucks recently but he is sold out and I have a limited # of these to sell. If you are interested or have questions, contact me OFF LIST at <espeefan@...>. Thanks.

Dan Smith