|
Looking for decals
Chuck Cover
Group,
I am looking for decals for a Westerfield #6702 North Western Refrigerator AC&F Type 3 reefer car, NWX. Please contact me off list if you can help. Thanks. Chuck Cover Santa Fe, NM |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
This is from the CSX dictionary,
Richard Webster |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
So Bruce, let me paraphrase what you are saying & see if I've got it right:
CAPY is just a handy way of classifying cars & can be ignored when actually loading a car. Ld. Lmt. indicates the actual weight of freight you can put in the car. This is something that has puzzled me for probably 60 years, but I've never been motivated to actually go out & find the answer. Thanks for the enlightenment! - Tom E. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: I received my Rapido X31s today
James Cummings
Did you receive a confirmation email prior to delivery? Rapido cashed my check several weeks ago and nothing from them yet. James Cummings.
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
The stated weight for an armored vehicle in most references is the “empty” weight. And they do mean empty. An in service vehicle will have fuel, oil, ammunition, crew weaponry, spare parts, tarps, and crew personal items, tents, sleeping bags/bedrolls, food, etc., plus the crew itself. That will easily add 10K-plus pounds. The crew was also very good at acquiring “things” in the field. Most such vehicles were literally covered in "stuff”. This also often included “in the field” crew-applied add-on “armor”. ANYTHING that even MIGHT provide extra protection … sandbags, wooden planks, scrap iron, old track-links, concrete, etc.) … add another 10K-20K pounds. And, yes, it overloaded the suspension and transmission leading to breakdowns. It came down to “do you want to be stranded or dead”.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
A vehicle being shipped will normally NOT have all the add-ons, and will have the ammunition and fuel removed, but may be accompanied by spare parts, etc. … so, take the stated weights as a lower limit, and probably add at least 5K pounds (2.5 tons) for a vehicle shipped on a rail car.
Dan MiItchell Sometimes crewman on a WWII M-18 Hellcat tank-destroyer (I wish somebody would make a decent HO model of an M-18, the two on Shapeways are poor).  ===========================================
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Randy Hammill
I think the timbers are there to protect the stake pockets. The tracks have the tendency to grab things.
Over at the Central New England right now Eversource is replacing line poles. One of the cranes pulled out several rail clips as it ran close to the rail. There are also steel cross pieces welded on the deck on the self-propelled flat car that were being damaged, so they have a rubber mat (that is near destroyed at this point) to prevent the tracks from catching on those. Randy -- — Randy Hammill Prototype Junction http://prototypejunction.com Modeling the New Haven Railroad 1946-1954 http://newbritainstation.com |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Car capacity vs load limit, was Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Ed,
Excellent question! Here's what that data on the side of a car means.
CAPY (or capacity) is the nominal weight allowed by the truck bearings, axles, and of course, car construction. On the F30A that is listed as 140,000 lbs or 70 tons.
Lt. Wt. (or light weight) is obviously the empty weight of the car (or tare weight). That is important as many shipments are charged by weight so you have to
know what the car weighs so as not to charge for that.
This confusion comes about because railroads wanted an easy system to classify capacity, (40, 50, 55, 70 ton, etc...) but it is really the total weight on the rails that matters for the given bearing size.
When a car is reweighed, the number determined is the Lt. Wt. If that changes, then the Ld Lmt has to change by a corresponding amount. The Capy does not change. That's why, when showing reweigh data as freshly painted on weathered cars, I often only protect
the last 3 digits of the Lt Wt and Ld Lmt and I always make sure that they add up to the correct total for that capacity car.
Thus, my comment that the load limit on the PRR F30A is around 158,000 lbs, well within the ability to carry a 60 ton tank or even a 65 ton tank.
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 10:48 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements Bruce,
The capacity of the car in the photo reads 140000 pounds. Can you crowd that up to 158000 pounds? The T43 was reported to weigh 60 tons in the New York Times, back in the day. It was also reported to weigh 50 tons. In the New York Times. Wikipedia says an M103 weighs 65 tons. Military things generally weighing a bit more than hoped, I will lean towards the T43 being a heavy tank. Anyway, it clearly arrived at its destination. Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
spsalso
Bruce,
The capacity of the car in the photo reads 140000 pounds. Can you crowd that up to 158000 pounds? The T43 was reported to weigh 60 tons in the New York Times, back in the day. It was also reported to weigh 50 tons. In the New York Times. Wikipedia says an M103 weighs 65 tons. Military things generally weighing a bit more than hoped, I will lean towards the T43 being a heavy tank. Anyway, it clearly arrived at its destination. Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Great photo. I’ve seen both M-48 and M-60 tanks with large timbers under them similar to this photo, and all overhang the sides of the flat car a bit.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
When building my 1/35 model of the M-103 I crawled all over a couple of these beasts, taking photos and measurements. The T-43 was at TACOM in Detroit, and an M-103 at Fort Knox in Kentucky. They’re a real hunk of iron! Sadly, there’s no decent model of them I know of available commercially in any scale. As I stated earlier, the ROCO HO model is all wrong. Dragon (DML) offers a kit in 1/35 scale, but it’s TERRIBLE too. They tried to modify their M-48 kit parts and the result is a mess. The hull slopes are all wrong, the turret shape is all wrong, and the turret sets way too far forward on the hull. While the M-103 is part of the M-48 “family”, it’s NOT just a bigger M-48. I did use some Monogram M-48 parts in my (mostly) scratchbuilt M-103, so I KNOW how many differences have to made, lots of cutting, repositioning, and TONS of squadron putty. The turret is mostly a big lump of body-putty. Unfortunately Dragon did not do their homework. My model won a Bronze
Medal (Advanced Class) at the 2000 AMPS (Armor Modeling and Preservation Society) convention in Maryland. As for the ROCO 6-axle flatcar, the only ones I’ve ever seen have the (correct) fishbelly side sills. Detai lis minimal, but overall it’s correct. They also have a U.S. Army 6-axle depressed-center car that was also tried for the M-103, but it seems it was only used (or intended for) Europe. This car is also a good model, but seems to have a very unsual prototype. Dan Mitchell ==========
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
I'm not sure that there was any "pucker" factor involved. The T43 at full up combat weight was 60 tons. The load limit of the PRR F30A was around 158,000 lbs, so plenty of room there.
BTW, this is T34 pilot #3. It appears to have been assembled by Chrysler at their Newark Delaware tank plant. Since that plant was served by the PRR the choice of a PRR 70 ton F30A seems pretty appropriate 😉
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of spsalso via groups.io <Edwardsutorik@...>
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 5:38 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing. Date appears to be March 25, 1952. The big flats weren't available yet. So they chose this 70T PRR flat. Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly. I imagine there were a few puckers on that one. Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
spsalso
Richard's comment about the tubing/timbers had me look again.
I can definitely see some wedge shaped pieces of steel under the rising track. And I can see what look like welds at the base of the steel. Thus I suspect there is some sort of horizontal steel member there. Outside of that, I DO see what looks like a piece of wood, what with the knots and such. I do agree it could have been for clearance reasons, though it doesn't look that it is overhanging all that much. Extreme width for the car is 10' - 2". If we take the common extreme width of 10' - 8", there's 3" overhang per side, which is pretty close to what I believe I am seeing. I surely wish I could see THAT photo BIG! Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Richard Townsend
I wonder if the reason for the the reason for the "tubing" (timbers?) was to raise the load enough to clear obstructions such as station platforms.
Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR
-----Original Message-----
From: Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...> To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Sent: Mon, Oct 18, 2021 4:07 pm Subject: Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements Yep, Ed, more than one!
They may have chosen this flat not only because it was a 70-ton car, but also a sturdy cast flat with integral pockets. PRR may have had no role in this, but maybe they did.
Puckering would definitely been evident, as the tank’s entire weight is not on the floor, but spread out over floor and stake pocket lips (!).
The “High & Wides” guys must’ve had a blast measuring this guy to make sure it fit within clearances!
Thanks for sharing!
Elden Gatwood
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
On Behalf Of spsalso via groups.io
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 6:39 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us. Maybe more.
That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing. Date appears to be March 25, 1952. The big flats weren't available yet. So they chose this 70T PRR flat. Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly. I imagine there were a few puckers on that one. Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Photo: HBAX Pickle Car #105 (Undated)
Photo: HBAX Pickle Car #105 (Undated) Photo courtesy of the New York Central Historical Society: https://nycshs.omeka.net/items/show/133835 Taken at Elkhart, IN. HBAX reporting mark assigned to Hirsch Brothers & Company, Louisville, KY. This is the plant with PRR boxcars on the spur: https://digital.library.louisville.edu/cdm/fullbrowser/collection/cs/id/3590/rv/singleitem Inside the plant: https://www.kyhistory.com/digital/collection/Morgan/id/4502/ Their products were trademarked Paramount Fine Foods. Lionel made a Hirsch Brothers pickle car. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Yep, Ed, more than one!
They may have chosen this flat not only because it was a 70-ton car, but also a sturdy cast flat with integral pockets. PRR may have had no role in this, but maybe they did.
Puckering would definitely been evident, as the tank’s entire weight is not on the floor, but spread out over floor and stake pocket lips (!).
The “High & Wides” guys must’ve had a blast measuring this guy to make sure it fit within clearances!
Thanks for sharing!
Elden Gatwood
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
On Behalf Of spsalso via groups.io
Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us. Maybe more. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
spsalso
Here's an interesting picture for at least two of us. Maybe more.
That's a T43 being delivered to Aberdeen Proving Ground for testing. Date appears to be March 25, 1952. The big flats weren't available yet. So they chose this 70T PRR flat. Note the sturdy square steel tubing that is supporting the tank and spreading the load evenly. I imagine there were a few puckers on that one. Ed Edward Sutorik 
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
Charlie Vlk
Nice model Dan! Didn’t Roco make two versions of USATC Flats….the one pictured and another with straight sides? AMTRAK got a bunch of them and likely used them to move locomotive and passenger car trucks around. Charlie Vlk
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Monday, October 18, 2021 3:47 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
The M-103 was a most impressive vehicle. The first pilot model was completed in 1949, but the productionmachines didn’t appear until 1953, so it’s right at the end off the steam-era.
For more info on the M-103 and my scratchbuilt 1/35 model of it, see <. http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmm103.htm. >.
Roco made a very poor HO model of it, one of their earlier efforts. The hull is oversimplified, and the turret is almost all wrong.
Roco also had a very poor model of the early M-48.
For a far nicer HO model of a “just barely” steam-era tank consider the Artitec M48 (1952). Unfortunately it’s a later version (ca. 1960), but the differences are minor aside from the engine deck (Diesel vs. gasoline). Here’s my ca. 1960 version, on the ROCO flatcar. It puts the Roco model to shame.
To backdate the model you’d need to scratchbuild a new flatter engine deck (perhaps salvage one from the old Roco model??), remove the vision-spacer ring beneath the commander’s cupola, and replace the gun barrel with a slightly thinner one (90mm instead of 105mm), and have just three track return rollers. Only the engine-deck conversion would be a considerable job.
Dan Mitchell ==========
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
While in the future of this list, I photographed several M103s on flat cars in Anniston, GA during a Southern Steam Excursion from Columbus, GA in about 1975.
Thanks! Brian Ehni
From: <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of "spsalso via groups.io" <Edwardsutorik@...>
In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development. It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built. |
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
The M-103 was a most impressive vehicle. The first pilot model was completed in 1949, but the productionmachines didn’t appear until 1953, so it’s right at the end off the steam-era.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
For more info on the M-103 and my scratchbuilt 1/35 model of it, see <. http://missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmm103.htm. >. Roco made a very poor HO model of it, one of their earlier efforts. The hull is oversimplified, and the turret is almost all wrong. Roco also had a very poor model of the early M-48. For a far nicer HO model of a “just barely” steam-era tank consider the Artitec M48 (1952). Unfortunately it’s a later version (ca. 1960), but the differences are minor aside from the engine deck (Diesel vs. gasoline). Here’s my ca. 1960 version, on the ROCO flatcar. It puts the Roco model to shame.  To backdate the model you’d need to scratchbuild a new flatter engine deck (perhaps salvage one from the old Roco model??), remove the vision-spacer ring beneath the commander’s cupola, and replace the gun barrel with a slightly thinner one (90mm instead of 105mm), and have just three track return rollers. Only the engine-deck conversion would be a considerable job. Dan Mitchell ==========
|
||||
|
|
||||
|
Re: Late 40's to mid 50's military rail movements
spsalso
In 1949, the T43 heavy tank was approved for development. It eventually became the M103 heavy tank, of which 300 were built.
They weighed about 65 tons. One fits nicely on the 100 ton flats that are being discussed. I am sure the Army included the possibility of having to transport heavy tanks like these when they commissioned the flat cars. Ed Edward Sutorik |
||||
|
|
||||
|
I received my Rapido X31s today
Jeffrey White
And they are up to their usual standard, they all came with two brake types so you can put the right one for your era on the car.
Jeff White Alma IL |
||||
|
|
