After going back and comparing the SCT Co entries in the '46, '49 and
'53 I see my mistake with the lateral motion device. I also saw nothing
that looked like a lateral motion device in the drawing but figured that
the differences I saw amounted to the lateral motion device in the
description. In comparing entries I see that the S-2A while being new to
the '49 CBC was not "The lateset type of Barber Stabilized truck..."
referred to in the description and let it mislead me. The only
differences I saw were in the wedge shape and the bolster, the thickness
of the end of the bolster is hardly something that I could discern in a
photo. I couldn't agree more that the Branchline truck is a good S-2 or
S-2A spring-plankless truck.
Thanks Richard,
Later,
Bill Kelly


Richard Hendrickson wrote:

On Jan 26, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

While the S-2 is in the '46 Car Builder's Cyclopedia, the S-2A is

not so
I went to the '49-'51 CBC. Both the S-2 and the S-2A are shown on
pp1010,1011. The difference is the S-2A has a built in lateral

motion

device and is intended for "high speed freight service". The
difference
in appearance is very small and would be hard for me to see in

most

freight car photos. Standard Car Truck Co.'s entry says that the

S-2 and
the S-2A can be had with or without spring planks, can be used

with

AAR
or double truss sideframes and can be made with any desired

spring

travel. Hope this helps.

I did the same research and came to the same conclusion, Bill. I'm

not sure where I got the idea the the S-2s had spring planks and the

S-2As didn't, but that's obviously not the case. However, I don't

agree that the S-2A had a lateral motion device. I've carefully
studied the drawing in the '49/'51 Cyc and I can find no evidence of

any provision for lateral motion. The Barber truck that had both
the
spring-wedge bolster snubbers and Barber's roller type lateral
motion
devices between the springs and bolster was the S-1 (or, later, S-1-

L). In any case, the differences between the S-2 and S-2A are so
slight as to be all but invisible in HO scale, so I continue to
regard the Branchline truck as an accurate HO scale representation
of
either the spring-plankless S-2 or S-2A and the closest we can come

at present to a Barber S-2/S-2A with spring plank.

Richard Hendrickson

____________________________________________________________
Click here to find the low cost way to send and receive faxes by email!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw19e5mLHxdmm3B53QLChc3izETfCqtjhR4ukIENjbkk9c1vD/

Folks,

Since the ASF A-3 truck has come up in recent discussions, and I
believe that Brianna and I need a couple of sets of plain bearing ASF
A-3 trucks for our HO Speedwitch New Haven flat cars, which is better/
more accurate/more appropriate for these cars, the IM ASF A-3 or the
Kato ASF A-3? And where might one purchase said trucks, given that
Walthers is fresh out (well, at least for the IM trucks, they've been
out for over a year)?

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;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

--- In STMFC@..., "devansprr" <devans1@...> wrote:

Several of the Cocoa Beach/RPM posts mentioned prototypes of two new
IM cars - a 70t AAR flat, and a War Emergency box.

Thanks to all for the great feedback - have been away from MRR for a
few days. Amazing the amount of good info available within this group!

Thank-you,
Dave Evans

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

Paul Lyons wrote:

--I thought the SP version?is what the whole tread was?about!

The whole tread is getting pretty worn.

Tony Thompson

Tony, having just gone through this in the digest format, it was kind
of fun.

Who's on first?

Best Regards,
Dave Evans

Dougl Harding wrote:

Now I am confused, because no where in Mark's message to this list, the STMFC list, does he mention the SP or tank cars. He simply asks "Which HO-model truck(s) best, if not correctly, represents the Barber stabilized ASF trucks? Thanks!"

For it appears there was a similar question asked on another list, which apparently contained more details not all on this list were privy too. And which folks are answering on this list assuming we all know the question.

No wonder I am confused.

Well summarized, Doug.

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

Not withstanding the fact that Martin has sold these kits at the various
shows that he has attended. Your chances of them showing up in your mail in
less than six months are extremely rare.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
cobrapsl@...
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:38 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: accurate Barber trucks



Jim,

This is why?I hate email------I thought the SP version?is what the whole
tread was?about!

Paul Lyons

Slight semantics here.

The new Westerfield kit is a B&O company service reefer inherited
from Fruit Growers Express, originally PRR R7 (no hyphen per Hom).
These were used in company ice service. Two are known: X-4784 and X-
4785 with photos at Willard and Wellston, Ohio, respectively.

B&O fielded a large fleet of reefers called B&O Class R-7 (with
hyphen per Mischke) which B&O conveyed to Fruit Growers Express at
the time of B&O membership. Several of these were also reacquired by
B&O, several never left B&O; and were used in company ice service.

These B&O R-7 and R7 reefers will cause confusion.



Nothing new here. B&O obtained at least 80 PRR G31 gondolas (no
hyphen) around 1970 and called them B&O.C&O class G-31 (with
hyphen). Coincidence. G-31 was the next empty class to be
administratively assigned. At least these two identies are the same
car.












--- In STMFC@..., " Westerfield" <westerfield@...> wrote:

Photos of the B&O R7 ice car are now up on our web site

www.westerfield.biz. We'll be launching the kit at Timonium. - Al
Westerfield

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

Now I am confused, because no where in Mark's message to this list, the STMFC list, does he mention the SP or tank cars. He simply
asks "Which HO-model truck(s) best, if not correctly, represents the Barber stabilized ASF trucks? Thanks!"

So far we have learned considerable, including that his question makes a connection between two different companies/designs that
did not exist. Not to mention he apparently left out key details when he asked the question, or at least the version of the
question that I saw. For it appears there was a similar question asked on another list, which apparently contained more details
not all on this list were privy too. And which folks are answering on this list assuming we all know the question.

No wonder I am confused.

Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org

On Jan 26, 2009, at 9:43 AM, Brian Leppert wrote:

I don't think that the "A" suffix signifies spring-plankless.
According to Southern Pacific paperwork (reproduced in the Southern
Pacific H&T Society's "SP Car Roster" publication) they had Barber
Stabilized S-2A trucks with spring planks.

As I indicted in my response to Bill Kelly, I agree that I was wrong
about this.

I'm probably jumping to a conclusion (which I'm good at), but I
suspect that the "A" refers to longer spring travel, the S-2 with the
traditional 1-5/8" travel versus 2-1/2" for the S-2A truck.

The drawings of Barber trucks in the various Cycs don't appear to
confirm this; they show the same spring lengths for both.

And I'm really sure that S-2 type trucks never had the self-aligning
feature. I've never seen any with it. The pressure of the spring
loaded wedges against the side frame columns certainly should have
hampered the ability of the sideframes to swivel on the truck
bolsters.

If I understand the function of the spring plank correctly, any truck
without a spring plank was necessarily self-aligning, though I'll
agree that the spring loaded wedge type snubbers of the Barber, ASF
A-3, National C-1, etc. designs would have not have permitted much
movement between the bolster and side frames.

Richard Hendrickson

Looking at all the power lines in the background horizon, I would say
this is 1915-1920. The great electrical grid buildout started in the
1890's, but 1900 was still a time of whale oil lamps. Anybody
disagree?



--- In STMFC@..., "Ed Olszewski" <eolszew1@...> wrote:

For all you folks with an interest in how railroad equipment was

made

in the past here is a photo in the USC Digital Archives of a boxcar
construction assembly line in Los Angeles.

http://digarc.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/view/chs-m12071/CHS-

43691

The caption info reads:

"Photograph of a floor laid for a railroad box car constructed at

Los

Angeles General shops, ca.1900. At center, a long wooden palette is
pictured on a set of rails, bordered to either side by elevated

planks.

To the right, several men can be seen behind a stack of lumber."

Many other railroad related photos in the archives for those

interested.

Ed Olszewski

On Jan 26, 2009, at 12:20 PM, Mark Pierce wrote:

Well Paul, I already ordered the Kato trucks. If you twist my arm a
bit more, I'll get Branchline's. If I do, what cars should I place

over the Katos?

Mark, Consider your arm twisted. As for what to do with the Kato
trucks, the ASF-A3 was introduced in 1944 and rapidly became the most
popular freight car truck on new construction until the advent of
roller bearing trucks. Even if your focus is primarily or
exclusively on SP freight cars, many post-WW-II SP cars of all types
were built with A-3 trucks, as shown in Thompson's books, so you'll
have no trouble finding a use for them.


Richard Hendrickson

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

. . . The Barber truck that had both the spring-wedge bolster snubbers and Barber's roller type lateral motion devices between the springs and bolster was the S-1 (or, later, S-1-
L).

Richard states this correctly, but it's worth emphasizing that the bolster snubbers and the lateral motion devices are ENTIRELY SEPARATE things. Neither requires nor implies the other.

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

For those who lack having enough Branchline Barber S2-A trucks, I have a good supply priced at $0.85/pair less wheelsets. I also have all of the Tahoe Model Works trucks available without wheelsets ($3.00/pair) and many with wheelsets ($5.00/pair) Contact me off-list if interested <midcentury@...>
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

On Jan 26, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Bill Kelly wrote:

While the S-2 is in the '46 Car Builder's Cyclopedia, the S-2A is
not so
I went to the '49-'51 CBC. Both the S-2 and the S-2A are shown on
pp1010,1011. The difference is the S-2A has a built in lateral motion
device and is intended for "high speed freight service". The
difference
in appearance is very small and would be hard for me to see in most
freight car photos. Standard Car Truck Co.'s entry says that the
S-2 and
the S-2A can be had with or without spring planks, can be used with
AAR
or double truss sideframes and can be made with any desired spring
travel. Hope this helps.

I did the same research and came to the same conclusion, Bill. I'm
not sure where I got the idea the the S-2s had spring planks and the
S-2As didn't, but that's obviously not the case. However, I don't
agree that the S-2A had a lateral motion device. I've carefully
studied the drawing in the '49/'51 Cyc and I can find no evidence of
any provision for lateral motion. The Barber truck that had both the
spring-wedge bolster snubbers and Barber's roller type lateral motion
devices between the springs and bolster was the S-1 (or, later, S-1-
L). In any case, the differences between the S-2 and S-2A are so
slight as to be all but invisible in HO scale, so I continue to
regard the Branchline truck as an accurate HO scale representation of
either the spring-plankless S-2 or S-2A and the closest we can come
at present to a Barber S-2/S-2A with spring plank.

Richard Hendrickson

--- In STMFC@..., Jim and Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
wrote:

The Sunshine GATC tank car kits have been available since Naperville.
Only the SP lettered version is new.

Yeah, this was all about the SP version.... I'm in no big hurry to

receive the Sunshine kits. I've got 12 Westerfield, Funaro, and
Speedwitch kits ahead of Sunshine's to be built. It'll probably be a
year before getting to Sunshine's tankers.

Mark

Paul Lyons wrote:

--I thought the SP version?is what the whole tread was?about!

The whole tread is getting pretty worn.

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

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 20:20:37 -0000, Mark Pierce wrote

Well Paul, I already ordered the Kato trucks. If you twist my arm a
bit more, I'll get Branchline's. If I do, what cars should I place
over the Katos?

Mark

Many of the branchline postwar boxcars should really have ASF A-3's so the
best bet would be to swap the S-2A's out from an appropriate kit that you
may have or need (I didn't catch what specific era is being modeled) and use
the Kato A-3's for the Branchline kit.

Brian Carlson

________________________________
From: Mark Pierce <marcoperforar@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 12:22:35 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: accurate Barber trucks


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups. com, cobrapsl@... wrote:

The soon to be released?Sunshine tank car kit....

Here is the Sunshine announcement:

http://www.sunshine kits.com/ sunimages/ sun87a.pdf

Mark

Mark

The 50 ton ASF A-3 was the single most popular truck in the
1950's so I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a car that
uses it. I just keep a box of Kato and Branchline trucks for
upcoming projects...

Tim

On Jan 26, 2009, at 11:53 AM, cobrapsl@... wrote:

Tony, Richard,

I have gotten confused with this tread. Richard, somehow got over
on SP boxcars, when Mark's original question was "What is the best
HO truck that to put under the Red Caboose/Drake SP GATX 8000 gal
tankcar."

So are we still in agreement---Branchline Barber S-2A???

Yes.

Richard Hendrickson