Ben,

My brain got stretched just going to the AMC roads >> adding the Erie, NKP and PM. Adding the B&O is too much also. As you get older, multi-tasking gets harder it seems. If I have a Pennsy question I quickly contact my buddy Richard Burg . . . a short couple of counties down the road. I'm getting into brain filing troubles with N&W and Virginian coal cars now.

My wife wonders why I can't remember her verbal list of three things to do before she gets back from work these days. It your damn computer stuff isn't it? You forgot to let the dog out at noon, etc.

Al

Al Kresse wrote:
"Class X28 and X28A alone means little to me. The C&O changed owners
and classes so many times that I gave up on grouping FCs and have
stayed more specific."

That may be true for the C&O, but to understand Pennsy freight cars,
you must understand the Class system. The Pennsy had so many freight
cars in many different number series that to refer to a specific number
series of cars often fails to tell the entire story of a particular
type of car. If can take the time to understand C&O freight cars, you
can certainly take the time to understand the Pennsy. There's
certainly no shortage of documentation.


Ben Hom

Class X28 and X28A alone means little to me. The C&O changed owners and classes so many times that I gave up on grouping FCs and have stayed more specific.

Al Kresse

Dean, saw them at the St Louis meet. Both impressive. I bought the box
car. The Hopper is one piece including the ends.
Clark Propst

Ben Hom wrote:

All Class X28 automobile cars were converted to Class X28A boxcars in 1933-1934.

As I observed, this was WELL before the widespread use of forklifts.

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

Dean Payne asked:
"On the Funaro website (fandckits.com), there are new kits for the PRR
X26c, a DT&I version of the above that I could be interested in, and
an H25 hopper. Has anyone seen these to comment on them?"

These actually were introduced back in May at the PRRT&HS Annual
Meeting. Both kits feature one-piece bodies. An article on building
the Funaro Class X26C kit with lots of additional prototype
information and photos will appear in an upcoming issue of TKM.

One caveat concerning the DT&I cars - these were auto parts cars
leased from the Pennsy between 1953 and 1955, so if you're a stickler
about layout time period, these may not work for you.


"The hopper is an astounding $50 retail. I'd be tempted to do the
H25 kitbash in the recent RMC."

It's up to you to decide if the time and effort saved by the Funaro
kit is worth $50. Besides, who pays retail for Funaro kits anyway?
If you can catch them at a show or PM meet, the price becomes 2 kits
for $50!


Ben Hom

Bob Witt asked:
"Did the PRR retain any original X28 or were all converted to X28A?"

Elden Gatwood replied:
"I think Ben Hom told me that all X28 were converted to X28A. It is
interesting to speculate how long it took for them to do this, given the
wanderings of so many box cars!"

All Class X28 automobile cars were converted to Class X28A boxcars in
1933-1934. Surpirsingly, it didn't take long at all:

Class X28
Jul 1933: 4990
Jul 1934: 458
Jul 1935: 0

Class X28A
Jul 1933: 0
Jul 1934: 4532
Jul 1935: 4989

See my article in the June 2005 issue of TKM for more information.


Ben Hom

Dean,

Don't forget that F&C kits are generally available directly from them on a perpetual 2-for-1 sale. That makes an astounding $50 into a much more reasonable $25 if you order two, or you can have pretty much anything else of equal or lesser value.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Dean Payne wrote:

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

b) is there any literature out there that might support the theory

that the wider boards were considered inferior - more susceptible to
cupping ,etc - than the narrower boards - and perhaps a war-time, or
at least lower cost expedient?

Thanks for any feedback,

Rob Kirkham

Rob,

You really need to acquire a couple of Car Builder's Cyclopedias so
you can look this stuff up for yourself. For your era I suggest the
RailDriver CD version of the 1922 CBC for background:
http://raildriver.com
Then search E-bay for a copy of the Kalmbach
reprint of the 1940 book.

In them you will find that the AAR, and both the ARA and MCB
previously specified standard sizes of lumber as Recommended Practice
for car building. The 1922 reference illustrates these in a section on
reinforcing car ends adopted in 1914, but I suspect the lumber
standards were adopted even earlier, although I don't have a reference
at hand. The purpose of the standardization was to cut down on the
inventory any particular shop or RIP track had to stock; in theory
minor damage to a wood car should be able to be repaired anywhere in
North America with material that matched the original.

There are two sizes of nominal 1" lumber shown: 1" X 4" lumber D&M
(dressed and matched) to 13/16" thick, 3 1/4" face with a 1/4" tongue,
and 1" X 6" rough stock D&M 13/16" thick, 5 1/4" face with a 1/4"
tongue. The former was called "Roofing and Lining", while the wider
boards were called "Flooring." Both were also available with V groove
edges and called "Sheathing." The wider board had an additional V
groove in the center to help control cupping; this made it look like
two 2 5/8" wide boards. This fact was often missed by model
manufacturers years ago; the drawings in the CBC call out 5 1/4" D&M,
and many older plastic models, notably Train Miniature, came tooled to
represent the nominal six inch boards, ignoring the center groove.

In my experience, the millwork sections were used somewhat
interchangeably, with both size sheathing (what later became to be
called "car siding") used interchangeably, sometimes on different
parts of the same car, and the same V groove sheathing used on roofs.
Nowhere have I ever seen a reference that stated that one was superior
to the other. In reality, wider boards of the same grade are normally
more expensive, because it is easier to get more high grade lumber out
of a log in small strips than wide planks, but the slightly greater
expense would be offset by the need to install fewer pieces to cover a
given area, so the end result would have been a wash.

As to the covering on the CP Dominion car roofs, these weren't really
expected to be waterproof. These cars had "inside metal roofs" which
were thin sheet metal panels that fitted in grooves cut in the sides
of the carlines; the exposed boards were just a covering to keep
trainmen from walking on the sheet metal and either slipping or
damaging it. The spotting feature of this style roof is the prominent
fascia mounted outside the car sides, these were actually spaced out
from the car side, so that any water that went between the roof boards
would drain off the sheet metal panels between the fascia and the
outside of the car side. There are diagrams in the various CBCs of
these roof systems as well.

Dennis

On the Funaro website (fandckits.com), there are new kits for the PRR
X26c, a DT&I version of the above that I could be interested in, and an
H25 hopper. Has anyone seen these to comment on them? The hopper is
an astounding $50 retail. I'd be tempted to do the H25 kitbash in the
recent RMC.

Dean Payne

Auto-loaders started being used around 1933, dropped off some during WW2, and came back strong after the war . . . and then dropped off again do to better "cold war" roads being built. Folklift useage became "standard practice" during WW2.

The older auto boxes became auto-parts cars as the newer or converted box cars got equipped with Auto-loaders. On the C&O, those wood-sheathed cars were converted to single, steel-door cars right after WW2. It was the newer steel-sheathed double-door boxes that had their secondary door fixed temporarily . . . until they got reblt properly, or stretched from 40-ft to 50-ft in length. A bunch of engine castings on pallets weighed a lot more than four-six automobiles. Seats in cardboard boxes were light and those wanted to go into the plants in at least 50-ft cars. Gen Motors would rather pay for four 50-footers than five 40-footers. Remember those parts cars usually sat in their yards for a while before being shoved into the assembly plants. It wasn't "just in time" delivery back then.

Al Kresse

Bob;



I think Ben Hom told me that all X28 were converted to X28A. It is
interesting to speculate how long it took for them to do this, given the
wanderings of so many box cars!



Elden Gatwood





________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
rwitt_2000
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2008 11:16 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why seal the left door?



Elden Gatwood replied:

I have also heard of cases in which auxiliary doors were sealed to

just rid

the RR of the need to maintain the door, although I have never seen

actual

documentation of this. I am told the X28 was one example of this, and

they

were later converted to single-door cars (and re-classed X28A) by

removing

the aux door and putting in replacement panels.

Dean Payne asked:

... I read a caption that stated
the left door was sealed shut. This is not all that unusual, from
what I read, but it suddenly struck me: why? What would be the
advantage? In a couple of cases at least, I think they had interior
racks for auto parts, so that could be one explanation. Are there any
other reasons? I'm not talking about where they replaced a half-door
with siding, but rather sealed the left door shut.

The B&O had a lot of "automobile" boxcars with the auxiliary door
"permanently fastened". The B&O did this for their class M-27, very
similar to the PRRX28. I always assumed, as you both have stated, this
was done when the cars received racks for automobile parts. I now
speculate that if a staggered door boxcar were assigned to general
merchandise service many other "loads" would require just the center
doors for access and fastening the aux door would offer more protection
for the loads. Boxcars carried all sort of crates, boxes, bricks, bulk
grains, etc. and many other items that required protection from the
weather.

An exception to this assumption is the fact that the B&O ran some M-27
in their as-built configuration with their auxiliary door still operable
until scraped. Did the PRR retain any original X28 or were all converted
to X28A?

Regards,

Bob Witt

Al Kresse wrote:

With side loading car equipped with Evans Prod Auto-loaders you had to swing an automobile arround going through the large door opeing. With these cars converted to auto parts car you now had to turn a forklift inside of the car . . .

Weren't most of the cars we are discussing modified well BEFORE the advent of forklifts as a common loading technology?

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

With side loading car equipped with Evans Prod Auto-loaders you had to swing an automobile arround going through the large door opeing. With these cars converted to auto parts car you now had to turn a forklift inside of the car. If you didn't have to play with a locking-post and secondary door, the process would be simplified. The patched "sealed" secondary door just bought time to a rebuild with a side sill reinforcement and a diamond plate steel flooring cover at the doorway to handle the forklift tear-up loadings . . . and maybe a pallet guard rail to save their sides.

Al Kresse

Elden Gatwood replied:

I have also heard of cases in which auxiliary doors were sealed to

just rid

the RR of the need to maintain the door, although I have never seen

actual

documentation of this. I am told the X28 was one example of this, and

they

were later converted to single-door cars (and re-classed X28A) by

removing

the aux door and putting in replacement panels.

Dean Payne asked:

... I read a caption that stated
the left door was sealed shut. This is not all that unusual, from
what I read, but it suddenly struck me: why? What would be the
advantage? In a couple of cases at least, I think they had interior
racks for auto parts, so that could be one explanation. Are there any
other reasons? I'm not talking about where they replaced a half-door
with siding, but rather sealed the left door shut.

The B&O had a lot of "automobile" boxcars with the auxiliary door
"permanently fastened". The B&O did this for their class M-27, very
similar to the PRRX28. I always assumed, as you both have stated, this
was done when the cars received racks for automobile parts. I now
speculate that if a staggered door boxcar were assigned to general
merchandise service many other "loads" would require just the center
doors for access and fastening the aux door would offer more protection
for the loads. Boxcars carried all sort of crates, boxes, bricks, bulk
grains, etc. and many other items that required protection from the
weather.

An exception to this assumption is the fact that the B&O ran some M-27
in their as-built configuration with their auxiliary door still operable
until scraped. Did the PRR retain any original X28 or were all converted
to X28A?

Regards,

Bob Witt

Morton and US Gypsum too...

Matt Sugerman

On Sep 15, 2008, at 5:15 AM, Mike Calvert wrote:

Scott Pitzer posted this link:

C.R.W.X. (animal and vegetable oils) tank cars, 1925-- Washington D.C.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/4310?size=_original

Can someone please identify the various tank cars?
Mike Calvert

Mike,

I'll give it a shot

- the two cars coupled together - look like early AC&F type 11s (note, no safety valves?) Spotting features include the channel "in" side sill (normally a sure sign of a UTL car, but also present on AC&F Type 7, 11, and 17), single row of rivets on tank sections and the handrail with corner stanchions (marking it as "early").

- the car in front (CRWX 284) and the car by the water tower - UTL built (type X) Spotting features include the somewhat higher running board and those great sill steps!

- the very dirty car coupled to CRWX 284 looks like it might be another AC&F type 11?

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"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

Folks,

I don't know if this group has had this discussion in the past. In
looking at C&O, N&W, and Virginian freight car diagram sheets I have
noticed two descriptions of heaping on coal cars -- 10" and 30 degree.
The end section drawing of the 30 degree heaped cars seems to show more
coal heaped up. All these railroads used 54-55 pounds per cubic bulk
density for their tonnage calculations. I'm not really looking for a
geometry class, but a history as to why 10" or 30 degrees and did they,
in actually practices, in the 1920s thru the 1950s (pre-flood loading),
load FB or HB gondolas any differently . . . . and did their heap
criteria affect if they equipped their cars with end-extensions or
not? If a tipple loaded both N&W and C&O 55-ton cars, would the shape
of the coal profile in the cars be any different by railroad? Yes,
I've seen images of C&O high-sided gons in WV loaded up with large
lumps of stoker coal right up to a peak much higher than 10".

Al Kresse
Romeo, Michigan

Dean;



The folks that do TKM are always glad to hear that you like it. Thanks!



You answered your own question. In that particular case, it was because the
car had racks (for auto parts) installed all the way to the center door.



I have also heard of cases in which auxiliary doors were sealed to just rid
the RR of the need to maintain the door, although I have never seen actual
documentation of this. I am told the X28 was one example of this, and they
were later converted to single-door cars (and re-classed X28A) by removing
the aux door and putting in replacement panels.



The X37B was a very cool freight car.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Dean
Payne
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2008 10:09 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Why seal the left door?



Reading the latest TKM (thanks, guys!), I read a caption that stated
the left door was sealed shut. This is not all that unusual, from
what I read, but it suddenly struck me: why? What would be the
advantage? In a couple of cases at least, I think they had interior
racks for auto parts, so that could be one explanation. Are there any
other reasons? I'm not talking about where they replaced a half-door
with siding, but rather sealed the left door shut.

Dean Payne

Scott Pitzer posted this link:

C.R.W.X. (animal and vegetable oils) tank cars, 1925-- Washington D.C.
http://www.shorpy.com/node/4310?size=_original

Can someone please identify the various tank cars?
Mike Calvert