Date   

Re: Tallest STMFC?

Rupert & Maureen <gamlenz@...>
 

Just checking further, the roofs weren't lowered until 1946.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Rupert & Maureen" <gamlenz@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 5:37 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Tallest STMFC?


Larry

The CB&Q had 69 housings for B-29 fuselages that were "permanently" mounted
on class FM-14 flatcars between 1944 and the end of 1945, resulting in a
height of 16' 2" from the rail to the roofwalk. (I'd also mention that the
CB&Q had a double deck stock car container #Q100 that was also mounted on a
flat with an overall height of 16' but that didn't appear until 1965)

The extended height cars that Richard referred to were 60 class XA-14D auto
cars with Dreadnaught end doors that had a 26 inch section added at the top
of the side and through the middle of the ends to raise the roof, to permit
the transport of B-26 wing sections. The above rail height was then 17'
3-1/16" which appears to "beat" the Santa Fe and UP cars. The extensions
were added in early 1942 and I think they lasted until at least 1944 when
production of the B-26's finished, and possibly until 1945 in connection
with a modification programme for the early planes. They weren't big enough
for the B-29 components, hence the housings mentioned above.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ



----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Tallest STMFC?


On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:59 PM, finkfam98055 wrote:

A trivia question -
What was the tallest Steam Era Freight Car in interchange service as
measured from the rail? That question occured to me when I saw the
listing for the 17 ft. tall, 50'-6" long boxcars numbered UP 562000-
564199, equipped with cradles for airplane parts. >>
Larry Fink


The Burlington also had some auto cars with the
roofs jacked up to accommodate aircraft parts, but IIRC they weren't
as tall as the UP and Santa Fe cars. >
Richard Hendrickson


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

Yahoo! Groups Links



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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.14/1646 - Release Date: 9/1/2008 6:03 PM


Re: Tallest STMFC?

Rupert & Maureen <gamlenz@...>
 

Larry

The CB&Q had 69 housings for B-29 fuselages that were "permanently" mounted on class FM-14 flatcars between 1944 and the end of 1945, resulting in a height of 16' 2" from the rail to the roofwalk. (I'd also mention that the CB&Q had a double deck stock car container #Q100 that was also mounted on a flat with an overall height of 16' but that didn't appear until 1965)

The extended height cars that Richard referred to were 60 class XA-14D auto cars with Dreadnaught end doors that had a 26 inch section added at the top of the side and through the middle of the ends to raise the roof, to permit the transport of B-26 wing sections. The above rail height was then 17' 3-1/16" which appears to "beat" the Santa Fe and UP cars. The extensions were added in early 1942 and I think they lasted until at least 1944 when production of the B-26's finished, and possibly until 1945 in connection with a modification programme for the early planes. They weren't big enough for the B-29 components, hence the housings mentioned above.

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, September 02, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Tallest STMFC?


On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:59 PM, finkfam98055 wrote:

A trivia question -
What was the tallest Steam Era Freight Car in interchange service as
measured from the rail? That question occured to me when I saw the
listing for the 17 ft. tall, 50'-6" long boxcars numbered UP 562000-
564199, equipped with cradles for airplane parts. >>
Larry Fink


The Burlington also had some auto cars with the
roofs jacked up to accommodate aircraft parts, but IIRC they weren't
as tall as the UP and Santa Fe cars. >
Richard Hendrickson


I believe you can change the Subject Line through Yahoo Groups

Scott Pitzer
 

In Yahoo Groups "Reply" I edited out the excess text, left the
pertinent items, typed this sentence, and now I'm about to copy the
WHOLE thing and paste it into a brand new message, with a brand new
subject line...
Scott Pitzer

--- In STMFC@..., "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@...> wrote:

I read, reply and post on Yahoo!'s groups website and can't change the
subject line.


Re: Subject Line - A Response

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., John Stokes <ggstokes@...> wrote:

Dear Honorable Gen. Mgr., C&CRR Co.

I won't speak for the rest of the culprits you have identified as
allegedly having broken the rule on subject headings, but my post WAS
about grab irons AND couplers, with the grab iron discussion and issue
driving the essence of the post. Sorry if you did not get my drift,
but there you are. Yes some of the responses to the original did veer
off to mostly a coupler discussion, occasioned by my reference of
scale couplers and other items as being part of the inevitable move to
more scale appliances on our model freight cars wrought by the
potential adoption of .006 dia. wire for scale HO grab irons, but even
those comments were tangentially relevant to the initial discussion.
It just gets so confusing sometimes, the complexity of these discussions.

HA! Smile! and all that.

Jace, I generally agree with your irritation at the often abrupt
change of subject with the subject line left intact, and if my mention
of couplers in my commentary set this off, please accept my apologies.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA
Financier and General Dog's Body
Northern Cascades & Pacific RWY.
Jace and John,

I read, reply and post on Yahoo!'s groups website and can't change the
subject line. I have the choices of either responding, even if the
subject line really doesn't match the discussion, or keeping quiet.
Anyone who knows me also knows I have a real problem with keeping
quiet<VBG>.

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA


Re: Subject Line - A Response

Stokes John
 

Dear Honorable Gen. Mgr., C&CRR Co.

I won't speak for the rest of the culprits you have identified as allegedly having broken the rule on subject headings, but my post WAS about grab irons AND couplers, with the grab iron discussion and issue driving the essence of the post. Sorry if you did not get my drift, but there you are. Yes some of the responses to the original did veer off to mostly a coupler discussion, occasioned by my reference of scale couplers and other items as being part of the inevitable move to more scale appliances on our model freight cars wrought by the potential adoption of .006 dia. wire for scale HO grab irons, but even those comments were tangentially relevant to the initial discussion. It just gets so confusing sometimes, the complexity of these discussions.

HA! Smile! and all that.

Jace, I generally agree with your irritation at the often abrupt change of subject with the subject line left intact, and if my mention of couplers in my commentary set this off, please accept my apologies.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA
Financier and General Dog's Body
Northern Cascades & Pacific RWY.


Re: Tallest STMFC?

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Sep 1, 2008, at 5:59 PM, finkfam98055 wrote:

A trivia question -
What was the tallest Steam Era Freight Car in interchange service as
measured from the rail? That question occured to me when I saw the
listing for the 17 ft. tall, 50'-6" long boxcars numbered UP 562000-
564199, equipped with cradles for airplane parts. Beside side doors,
they also had large arched-top end doors. These cars appear in at
least the Jan 1949 (12 cars) and 1953 ORER (15 cars), but not the
April
1942 issue. Can any other member share more information about these
cars, and was there any taller car in the steam-era?

Larry Fink












Larry, cars of this type are shown and discussed in Terry Metcalfe's
Union Pacific Freight Cars book (unfortunately, long out of print);
they were rebuilt with extended roofs from A-50-15 end door cars in
1942 to transport aircraft parts from Boeing's Kansas factories to
their Seattle area assembly plants and were stencilled THIS CAR
EXCESS HEIGHT ABOVE RAIL 16'11-1/2". In the 7/43 ORER there were 23
cars numbered in the 261100-261199 series. Numbering changed in
later years as different loading fixtures were fitted. In fact,
these UP cars were not the tallest, as the Santa Fe had 31 cars in
the 7/43 ORER, also for aircraft parts service, with an extreme
height of 17'1"; those were "whalebelly" cars rebuilt with steel
bodies in the mid-to-late 1930s on pre-WW-I underframes with four
deep fishbelly sills. They were initially modified in 1941 to ship
PB2Y-3 wings from Goodyear in Akron, OH to the Consolidated assembly
plant in San Diego. The Burlington also had some auto cars with the
roofs jacked up to accommodate aircraft parts, but IIRC they weren't
as tall as the UP and Santa Fe cars. Obviously, these excess-height
cars had to be carefully routed, as they greatly exceeded the
prevailing clearance limits, though that wasn't much of a problem
since they were in captive service and couldn't be used for any other
lading than what they were designed for.

Richard Hendrickson


Subject Line

Justin Kahn
 

Apologies for all the rest of the messages I couldn't eliminate--I am using a Mac, which doesn't do what I'd like it to do--but
I am puzzled why so many list members, many of whom are among the most senior participants, continue a subject heading
about grab irons to discuss couplers.

Jace Kahn, General Manager
Ceres and Canisteo RR Co.
3a. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Steve Lucas
3b. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Anthony Thompson
3c. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: wmcclark1980
3d. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: wmcclark1980
3e. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Gene Green
3f. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Gene Green
3g. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Anthony Thompson
3h. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: John Stokes
3i. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Dennis Storzek
3j. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Steve Lucas
3k. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
From: Anthony Thompson

eaded where from where? Info on what
the load was, perhaps even where originated and where bound for, if
applicable, would be "icing on the cake". If my e-mail can't be deduced
from the posting it is staffan dot ehnbom at telia dot com.

Staffan Ehnbom


Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1b. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Mike Brock" brockm@... mb8444
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 9:20 am ((PDT))

Staffan Ehnbom writes:

"I intend to try and do a clinic on Great Northern freight cars in
interchange and would love to hear samples of GN cars shown to be
on "foreign"roads. I would appreciate receiveing info on the GN car
number, location or in a train headed where from where? Info on what
the load was, perhaps even where originated and where bound for, if
applicable, would be "icing on the cake".

As you might have noticed, the 1956 data I have on 31 UP frt trains over
Sherman Hill includes 47 GN box cars. I have not compiled a list of flats
and gons yet. I'll be glad to compile the GN box car data as to car numbers,
load and destination but it will take time to do that. When do you need it?

Mike Brock



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1c. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "gsb157" sgaab@... gsb157
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 1:03 pm ((PDT))

Staffan,
The following information is from an original agents record yard check
book at the Portland, PA station of the Lehigh & New England RR:

Date Load Destination
4/22/55 GN 44298 Malt Catasauqua
5/24/55 GN 21790 Flour Allentown
8/24/55 GN 42420 glass cont. (unknown)

Hope this info is helpful.
Greg Bartek


--- In STMFC@..., "frtcar" <staffan.ehnbom@...> wrote:

I intend to try and do a clinic on Great Northern freight cars in
interchange and would love to hear samples of GN cars shown to be
on "foreign"roads. I would appreciate receiveing info on the GN car
number, location or in a train headed where from where? Info on what
the load was, perhaps even where originated and where bound for, if
applicable, would be "icing on the cake". If my e-mail can't be
deduced
from the posting it is staffan dot ehnbom at telia dot com.

Staffan Ehnbom



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1d. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Staffan Ehnbom" staffan.ehnbom@... frtcar
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 2:12 pm ((PDT))

Greg,

Info about cars as far East as PA is especially interesting. Thank you very much!

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: gsb157
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 10:03 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: GN frt cars in interchange


Staffan,
The following information is from an original agents record yard check
book at the Portland, PA station of the Lehigh & New England RR:

Date Load Destination
4/22/55 GN 44298 Malt Catasauqua
5/24/55 GN 21790 Flour Allentown
8/24/55 GN 42420 glass cont. (unknown)

Hope this info is helpful.
Greg Bartek

--- In STMFC@..., "frtcar" <staffan.ehnbom@...> wrote:
>
> I intend to try and do a clinic on Great Northern freight cars in
> interchange and would love to hear samples of GN cars shown to be
> on "foreign"roads. I would appreciate receiveing info on the GN car
> number, location or in a train headed where from where? Info on what
> the load was, perhaps even where originated and where bound for, if
> applicable, would be "icing on the cake". If my e-mail can't be
deduced
> from the posting it is staffan dot ehnbom at telia dot com.
>
> Staffan Ehnbom
>





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



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1e. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Brian J Carlson" brian@... prrk41361
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 2:37 pm ((PDT))

Why, is it interesting? It is documented that boxcars got around. (I am not
trying to start that thread again).

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Staffan Ehnbom" <staffan.ehnbom@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: GN frt cars in interchange


Greg,

Info about cars as far East as PA is especially interesting. Thank you
very much!

Staffan Ehnbom



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1f. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Staffan Ehnbom" staffan.ehnbom@... frtcar
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 2:48 pm ((PDT))

Tim,

Thank you for sending those. Beautiful pictures but not possible to tell for sure what series the GN cars are. But at least they show that GN 40' box cars appeared at Dunsmuir at some time.

Info on GN box cars in interchange is rather abundant. Info on other car types is very rare.

Staffan

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 5:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] GN frt cars in interchange


Staffan, how about these two from Dunsmuir during WWII?

http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf6f59p0d5/?&query=dunsmuir&brand=oac
http://content.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/tf5f59n9dr/?&query=dunsmuir&brand=oac

Tim O'Connor

>I intend to try and do a clinic on Great Northern freight cars in
>interchange and would love to hear samples of GN cars shown to be
>on "foreign"roads. I would appreciate receiveing info on the GN car
>number, location or in a train headed where from where? Info on what
>the load was, perhaps even where originated and where bound for, if
>applicable, would be "icing on the cake". If my e-mail can't be deduced
>from the posting it is staffan dot ehnbom at telia dot com.
>
>Staffan Ehnbom





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



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1g. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Staffan Ehnbom" staffan.ehnbom@... frtcar
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 3:09 pm ((PDT))

Primarily because if somebody helps me with info I have asked for, I want to show an interest in the info received. But also Pennsylvania is a little more interesting than Illinois, for instance, when it comes to the travels of GN cars.

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: Brian J Carlson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 11:31 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: GN frt cars in interchange


Why, is it interesting? It is documented that boxcars got around. (I am not
trying to start that thread again).

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY
----- Original Message -----
From: "Staffan Ehnbom" <staffan.ehnbom@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, September 01, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: GN frt cars in interchange

> Greg,
>
> Info about cars as far East as PA is especially interesting. Thank you
very much!
>
> Staffan Ehnbom





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



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1h. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Bruce Smith" smithbf@... smithbf36832
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 4:27 pm ((PDT))

On Mon, September 1, 2008 5:09 pm, Staffan Ehnbom wrote:
Primarily because if somebody helps me with info I have asked for, I want
to show an interest in the info received. But also Pennsylvania is a
little more interesting than Illinois, for instance, when it comes to the
travels of GN cars.

Staffan Ehnbom
Staffan,

I'll repeat Brain's question - Why is it more interesting to see GN cars
in PA? It certainly is not unexpected!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL



Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
1i. Re: GN frt cars in interchange
Posted by: "Tim O'Connor" timboconnor@... cf5250
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 6:10 pm ((PDT))


GN 171533 -- Stockton California, 1986
GN 171674 -- Chicago area, 1960's





Messages in this topic (10)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2. HO Brass, resin and styrene kits for sale
Posted by: "Rob Adams" steamera@... thesteamera
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 10:39 am ((PDT))

I'm switching scales from HO to O and have several brass models and
craftsman freight cars kits available for sale. This includes resin
kits from the likes of Speedwitch, Sunshine and Westerfield, along with
styrene from Intermountain, Red Caboose and Proto 2000. I also have
track, turnouts, and other things that a guy needs to run his Steam Era
Freight cars. Please e-mail me off-list to steamera@... for a
listing. Thanks.

Regards, Rob Adams


Messages in this topic (1)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
3a. Re: Scale diameter grab irons
Posted by: "Steve Lucas" stevelucas3@... stevelucas3
Date: Mon Sep 1, 2008 1:31 pm ((PDT))

Indeed, Tony. I was having a little fun adding coupler type to
the "truck width", draft gear box size" and "grab iron diameter" topics.

Likely you are aware that NMRA data sheet D9p has a short write-up on
MCB/AAR coupler contours and couplers, including mention of the MCB
type D, given in the data sheet as being designed in 1904, made AAR
standard in 1918, and allowed for use in new construction until the
Type E was approved as AAR standard in 1932. So many cars with in the
era of STMFC had these, and they are noticeable to the observer by
their smaller size compared to the Type E. I have a number of
Westerfield 36' steel-frame box cars that should/will be re-fitted with
these. And I'm modelling 1956.

Does anyone have an AAR Field Manual of the Interchange Rules for 1956
that can answer if Type D couplers were legal for interchange at that
time? My copy of the 1995 Field Manual mentions them under Rule 90 B 2
(b) as being prohibited in interchange at that time. Is there an on-
line database that mentions dates that various car components and
trucks were prohibited in interchange?

Steve Lucas.



-- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Steve Lucas wrote:
Dare I start a new thread on modelling cars in HO with AAR Type D
couplers?
Most of us need type E, Steve.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA

_________________________________________________________________
Be the filmmaker you always wanted to be—learn how to burn a DVD with Windows®.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/108588797/direct/01/

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


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Gene--

Thank you for your reply on this and the Type D coupler question.
I'm not surprised about the many exceptions, and I'm sure you haven't
even considered the ones that applied on Canadian roads, such as K
brakes and arch-bar trucks being allowed a lot longer for interchange
within Canada (into the 1960's) than in the US, as long as the cars
were not loaded for US destinations.

I only have the 1995 AAR Field Manual, and the car equipment
exceptions cited for this year alone would be difficult to make a
database out of, never mind over the years.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@> wrote:
Is there an on-line database that mentions dates that various car
components and trucks were prohibited in interchange?

Steve Lucas.
Steve,
I have Interchange rules for every year from 1909 to 2007 except
1921
and 1923. (Can anyone help with either of those.) I thought just
such
a database would be right up my alley because I like making
databases.
Turns out there are too many exceptions, too many potential
appliances
(components, trucks, whatever) and too much work designing a
useable
database and so on. I gave up in frustration.

Gene Green
OitwTtoEP


Re: Scale diameter grab irons and little, little, couplers...

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Dennis--

Could very well be the Sharon and Tower couplers that I have seen in
period photos that I am thinking of, such as those photos
accompanying Cyril Durrenberger's (sp?) article in MM on circa-1900
tank cars. Looking at circa 1936/38 loco photos at the location on
the CN that I am modelling, there are some slide-valve Moguls fitted
with what look like very small couplers on the pilot. Tower or
Sharon couplers again, I suppose?

And looking at circa 1910-1920 photos, again appear cars fitted with
smaller couplers than the Type E that we are used to seeing today. I
have to wonder about the popularity of the Sharons and Tower couplers
at the time compared to the Type D. And how many were still in use
in the mid-1950's other than on the odd Burro crane.

Al Welch of Toronto has modelled some HO circa 1910-1920 cars using
what looks like the Kadee #711 coupler. The smaller relative size of
the coupler head to even Kadee #58/78's is very noticeable. And as
you mention, using these on a layout would call for a lot of
attention to be paid when laying track with vertical curves. The
Kadee #5, while it looks like a big boxing glove on an HO car, allows
for a lot of latitude when laying track.

As for the Type D/E conundrum, with what you mention here, the only
other difference that I can think of is that the Type D had a smaller
shank than the E. Perhaps this was the reason for these couplers
becoming eventually outlawed? I'm sure that an SP AC, a C&O
Alleghany, or a UP Big Boy would test the strength of these couplers,
FAST.

So, I'm left wondering where these couplers would be appropriate on
earlier cars. Because I'm sure that some would have been found on
cars into the late steam era.

Sharons on Soo Line coaching stock? Hope that the Soo Line used
safety chains on their coaches. :)

Thanks for the info,

Steve Lucas.


-- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...>
wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@> wrote:

Likely you are aware that NMRA data sheet D9p has a short write-
up on
MCB/AAR coupler contours and couplers, including mention of the
MCB
type D, given in the data sheet as being designed in 1904, made
AAR
standard in 1918, and allowed for use in new construction until
the
Type E was approved as AAR standard in 1932. So many cars with
in the
era of STMFC had these, and they are noticeable to the observer
by
their smaller size compared to the Type E. I have a number of
Westerfield 36' steel-frame box cars that should/will be re-
fitted with
these. And I'm modelling 1956.
Steve,

You'd be hard pressed to tell a prototype Type D from a Type E in a
train, much less a 87:1 model. The only visible difference is the D
had a 9" high knuckle, while the E was 11" tall. One could buy
Sergent
couplers, and file .0115" off thye top and bottom of the knuckles,
but
that would only make them more likely to slip out of each other on
our
greater than prototype vertical curves.

I think what you have in mind are the pre-Type D MCB contour
couplers,
such as those made by Climax, Tower, and Sharon. These were
typically
9" from the pulling face to the striker horn, while both the D and E
were 12"… noticeably larger.


Does anyone have an AAR Field Manual of the Interchange Rules for
1956
that can answer if Type D couplers were legal for interchange at
that
time?
I can't put my finger on the date the Type D was made non legal for
interchange, but I recall it was sometime during my railway museum
days in the early seventies. As far as I know, all the pre-Type D
MCB
contour couplers were still acceptable in interchange until this
same
time. As it is, Soo Line passenger cars kept their Sharons with the
little turning dinkus lock right to the end of passenger service on
the Soo in 1966.


Dennis


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

John Stokes wrote:
Now that Hornby have come out with a live steam engine in OO scale (British HO, just slight larger), we are breaching that reality thresh hold too.
Good point, John, and by the time you account for British locos being distinctly smaller than U.S. ones, the OO technology for British outline should work just fine for American power. Let's see if it happens. Hornby seem interested in the U.S. market--they had a big stall at the Anaheim train show--so you can't rule it out.

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: Scale diameter grab irons

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Tony--

No offence taken. Your interest (and that of other posters on STMFC)
in making sure that historical facts are accurate is NOT nit-picking;
it is both necessary and commendable. Without this oversight,
fictional "facts" presented unknowingly by an author/poster
become "fact" with repitition. And the railway historical record is
littered with false and questionable "facts".

Steve Lucas.

-- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Steve Lucas wrote:
. . . the MCB type D, given in the data sheet as being designed
in
1904, made AAR standard in 1918, and allowed for use in new
construction until the Type E was approved as AAR standard in
1932.

You meant, of course, ARA standard, as the AAR did not exist
until
1934. And the standardization of the Type D was originally under
MCB,
as the MCB did not merge with ARA until 1919. But those are nits.
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: Scale diameter grab irons

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

Likely you are aware that NMRA data sheet D9p has a short write-up on
MCB/AAR coupler contours and couplers, including mention of the MCB
type D, given in the data sheet as being designed in 1904, made AAR
standard in 1918, and allowed for use in new construction until the
Type E was approved as AAR standard in 1932. So many cars with in the
era of STMFC had these, and they are noticeable to the observer by
their smaller size compared to the Type E. I have a number of
Westerfield 36' steel-frame box cars that should/will be re-fitted with
these. And I'm modelling 1956.
Steve,

You'd be hard pressed to tell a prototype Type D from a Type E in a
train, much less a 87:1 model. The only visible difference is the D
had a 9" high knuckle, while the E was 11" tall. One could buy Sergent
couplers, and file .0115" off thye top and bottom of the knuckles, but
that would only make them more likely to slip out of each other on our
greater than prototype vertical curves.

I think what you have in mind are the pre-Type D MCB contour couplers,
such as those made by Climax, Tower, and Sharon. These were typically
9" from the pulling face to the striker horn, while both the D and E
were 12"… noticeably larger.


Does anyone have an AAR Field Manual of the Interchange Rules for 1956
that can answer if Type D couplers were legal for interchange at that
time?
I can't put my finger on the date the Type D was made non legal for
interchange, but I recall it was sometime during my railway museum
days in the early seventies. As far as I know, all the pre-Type D MCB
contour couplers were still acceptable in interchange until this same
time. As it is, Soo Line passenger cars kept their Sharons with the
little turning dinkus lock right to the end of passenger service on
the Soo in 1966.


Dennis


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Stokes John
 

Clark,

I haven't tried the Sergent couplers, but I know about them, and the more scale size Kadees are an improvement also. We agree, that was my point, that if we go more scale on one item, scale will come to other items. As someone else on one of these groups says, change is inevitable, resistance is optional. None of us would like to return to the good old days of metal blobs for brake cylinders or handrails the size of a 4x4 and hook and loop couplers, but we resist the change of the day as if by ritual, then years later when we have moved up a notch in realism, we wonder how they stood it way back then.

Of course, it is your railroad, and if you want to be a tinplate junky that is also fine, to each his own, but don't bemoan progress because it doesn't match your reality. Now that Hornby have come out with a live steam engine in OO scale (British HO, just slight larger), we are breaching that reality thresh hold too.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA





To: STMFC@...: walterclark@...: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 22:40:10 +0000Subject: [STMFC] Re: Scale diameter grab irons




--- In STMFC@..., John Stokes <ggstokes@...> wrote:>> I understand that it is not mandatory to change to scale grab irons,thank goodness. That being so, the individual considerations you poseare worth thinking about. On the other hand, it is the offering ofmore and more refined bits and pieces like grab irons that helps movethe hobby along to more accurately capturing a prototypeappearance.<SNIP>. Maybe if the scale grab irons come, they will buildscale couplers<SNIP the rest>.John, scale couplers are here. Go to: http://www.sergentengineering.com/ where you can see really, truly HOscale couplers. However they don't mate with Kadee, or any otherremote actuated coupler, and you have to get right next to the car touncouple, and they don't automatically center, either. But since weall need ways to "expand" the size of our layout space, those aren'tproblems, but benefits. You don't have any of those magnetic wiressticking down from each coupler that look even more out of place whenyou do use scale grab irons, the prototype brakeman had to get rightnext to the coupler to uncouple or couple, and if the couplers weren'tlined up he/she had to bodily push them into alignment, and if theprototype couplers were both closed one had to be opened to enable thetwo cars to couple. With the Sergent Engineering couplers we have toget right in there and do it manually, which takes time and makes therailroad seem longer.We don't (yet) have scale air hoses that the brakeman has to coupletogether, but I'm sure someone is working on that<grin>.Yes, every advance comes with a lot of resistance from those who don'twant to change from the status quo. But that's okay, too. Make a fewcars with Kadee couplers on one end and Sergent couplers on the other.Or don't. It's your railroad, right?Time stopped in November 1941Walter M. ClarkPullman, Washington, USA


Re: GN frt cars in interchange

Tim O'Connor
 

GN 171533 -- Stockton California, 1986
GN 171674 -- Chicago area, 1960's


Tallest STMFC?

Larry Fink
 

A trivia question -
What was the tallest Steam Era Freight Car in interchange service as
measured from the rail? That question occured to me when I saw the
listing for the 17 ft. tall, 50'-6" long boxcars numbered UP 562000-
564199, equipped with cradles for airplane parts. Beside side doors,
they also had large arched-top end doors. These cars appear in at
least the Jan 1949 (12 cars) and 1953 ORER (15 cars), but not the April
1942 issue. Can any other member share more information about these
cars, and was there any taller car in the steam-era?

Larry Fink


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Gene Green wrote:
Paragraphs 17 and 18 of my 1956 Interchange Rules refer to replacement off line and gage limits for Type D couplers so I infer they are still OK in interchange.
Thanks, Gene. That's useful to know.

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: Scale diameter grab irons

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
Is there an on-line database that mentions dates that various car
components and trucks were prohibited in interchange?

Steve Lucas.
Steve,
I have Interchange rules for every year from 1909 to 2007 except 1921
and 1923. (Can anyone help with either of those.) I thought just such
a database would be right up my alley because I like making databases.
Turns out there are too many exceptions, too many potential appliances
(components, trucks, whatever) and too much work designing a useable
database and so on. I gave up in frustration.

Gene Green
OitwTtoEP


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:

Indeed, Tony. I was having a little fun adding coupler type to
the "truck width", draft gear box size" and "grab iron diameter"
topics.

Likely you are aware that NMRA data sheet D9p has a short write-up
on
MCB/AAR coupler contours and couplers, including mention of the MCB
type D, given in the data sheet as being designed in 1904, made AAR
standard in 1918, and allowed for use in new construction until the
Type E was approved as AAR standard in 1932. So many cars with in
the
era of STMFC had these, and they are noticeable to the observer by
their smaller size compared to the Type E. I have a number of
Westerfield 36' steel-frame box cars that should/will be re-fitted
with
these. And I'm modelling 1956.

Does anyone have an AAR Field Manual of the Interchange Rules for
1956
that can answer if Type D couplers were legal for interchange at
that
time? My copy of the 1995 Field Manual mentions them under Rule 90
B 2
(b) as being prohibited in interchange at that time. Is there an
on-
line database that mentions dates that various car components and
trucks were prohibited in interchange?

Steve Lucas.
Steve,
Paragraphs 17 and 18 of my 1956 Interchange Rules refer to
replacement off line and gage limits for Type D couplers so I infer
they are still OK in interchange.
Gene Green


Re: GN frt cars in interchange

Bruce Smith
 

On Mon, September 1, 2008 5:09 pm, Staffan Ehnbom wrote:
Primarily because if somebody helps me with info I have asked for, I want
to show an interest in the info received. But also Pennsylvania is a
little more interesting than Illinois, for instance, when it comes to the
travels of GN cars.

Staffan Ehnbom
Staffan,

I'll repeat Brain's question - Why is it more interesting to see GN cars
in PA? It certainly is not unexpected!

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Scale diameter grab irons

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., John Stokes <ggstokes@...> wrote:

I understand that it is not mandatory to change to scale grab irons,
thank goodness. That being so, the individual considerations you pose
are worth thinking about. On the other hand, it is the offering of
more and more refined bits and pieces like grab irons that helps move
the hobby along to more accurately capturing a prototype
appearance.<SNIP>. Maybe if the scale grab irons come, they will build
scale couplers<SNIP the rest>.

John, scale couplers are here. Go to:
http://www.sergentengineering.com/ where you can see really, truly HO
scale couplers. However they don't mate with Kadee, or any other
remote actuated coupler, and you have to get right next to the car to
uncouple, and they don't automatically center, either. But since we
all need ways to "expand" the size of our layout space, those aren't
problems, but benefits. You don't have any of those magnetic wires
sticking down from each coupler that look even more out of place when
you do use scale grab irons, the prototype brakeman had to get right
next to the coupler to uncouple or couple, and if the couplers weren't
lined up he/she had to bodily push them into alignment, and if the
prototype couplers were both closed one had to be opened to enable the
two cars to couple. With the Sergent Engineering couplers we have to
get right in there and do it manually, which takes time and makes the
railroad seem longer.

We don't (yet) have scale air hoses that the brakeman has to couple
together, but I'm sure someone is working on that<grin>.

Yes, every advance comes with a lot of resistance from those who don't
want to change from the status quo. But that's okay, too. Make a few
cars with Kadee couplers on one end and Sergent couplers on the other.
Or don't. It's your railroad, right?

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA

119041 - 119060 of 194663