With all the present chitter-chatter about the historical validity of
what we and others do, I thought that this little news item may be of
interest.

A rail enthusiast recently bought a four page parchment manuscript
from a bookshop in York (England) for approx US$2300. The document
was written in 1821 on behalf of George Stephenson, who was
illiterate, and related to 'Rocket'.

No other details were given as to the content, but it does show that
the throw away bits of paper of the past are historically valuable
with the passage of time.

The snootier element of historians may not give much credence to the
opinions and verbal histories of the working man but for many years
verbal records have been deliberately collected by museums here in
the UK for their historical value and to put 'real time' flesh on the
written account.

I derive a great deal of information from this site, I've just down-
loaded a copy of that superb M&W boxcar just added to the files, and
equally enjoy and LEARN from the anecdotes of those who actually
worked on the rails. Whether the history is written or verbal is of
no consequence, the only important factor is that we learn from it
and it adds to the pool of knowledge that we share.

I am egarly waiting the publication of Anthony's next great missive
on Southern Pacific freight cars, it's about time Ted Culotta wrote
another to follow up the ARA cars and why doesn't somebody do a book
or series on the Cotton Belt freight cars (hint, hint).

It is ALL history, footnotes be damned. I can access a bibliography
just as easily and can more easily read a book without it being
scattered with a million and one irritating footnotes.

Barry Bennett
Cynical Limey

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

Since my e-mail last week attempting to identify some freight cars in a 1945
photo of Vancouver, I've been attempting to match appropriate models. The
Seaboard 1932 design cars were apparently once offered by F&C and by
Sunshine, but my reading of the various lists available indicates that both
are no longer in production. So I started thinking about a kitbash.

Comments appreciated.

Mr. Kirkham,

I would save yourself a lot of hassle and send a check to Mr. Lofton. My perusal of Mr.
Hayes' All-Time Sunshine Kit List (updated 3/11/07) has the following kits listed:

21.12 SAL 1932 ARA boxcar "Orange Blossom Special" decals DISCONTINUED
21.13 SAL 1932 ARA boxcar "Route of Courteous Service" decals
21.14 SAL 1932 ARA boxcar "Silver Comet" decals

The above kits are $25.00 each.

21.27 SAL 1932 ARA boxcar "Silver Meteor" decals
21.28 SAL 1932 ARA boxcar "Robert E. Lee" decals

The above kits are $28.00 each.

If you really want the Orange Blossom Special scheme, use the Speedwitch Media set for
these cars. Or, just use the Speedwitch set to letter any of the cars, it is a beautiful set of
decals.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Copy of matherside2.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>
Description : C&IM side details including the unique Mather roof

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Copy%20of%20matherside2.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Copy of matherend.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>
Description : C&IM end clearly showing the classic Mather design

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Copy%20of%20matherend.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Copy (2) of matherside1.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>
Description : Side view of remaining C&IM car.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Copy%20%282%29%20of%20matherside1.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>

--- In STMFC@..., "cvsne" <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:

I am taking a class called Study and Writing of History as part of the
required coursework for a History MA/PhD program. While discussing
research and appropriate sources the professor made an interesting
statement about what can be considered "real" history - by that she
meant a valid source -- as opposed to a "popular" historian.

Which led to wonder if all the research we as a group do on freight
cars is real history or not. I don't know that any of us is working on
a PhD in Freightcarology . . . but I think the methodical approach some
apply to this research certainly qualifies as "history." The question
is does this type of research stand up to a citation in a scholarly
paper, or is it merely some offshoot of "popular" history.

Mr. McGuirk,

Hmmm, interesting question. I certainly think that there are numerous examples of "real"
history in the freight car literature. You mentioned the PFE book by Thompson, et al. Dr.
Thompson's series on SP freight cars, Dr. Hendrickson's books on ATSF rolling stock, and
Mr. Welch's ongoing FGE/WFE/BRE articles count in my book as well. I also think much of
what is published in RP Cyc also qualifies, and especially Mr. Culotta's book on the 1932
ARA steel boxcar. I believe that much of what has been written has been researched to the
level of scholarly citation, but hasn' t been written in the appropriate format with
footnotes, etc. I think the key is the citation of primary literature. Without a reliance on
primary sources, you are essentially writing a book report. At least that is what was my
professors tried to hammer into me during my undergraduate studies.

My two cents, for what they are worth.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Copy of matherside.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>
Description : The rara avis! The only surviving C&IM Mather car (sort of).

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Copy%20of%20matherside.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /M&W 1266.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>
Description : this shot was taken by M. D. McCarter of 1266 prior to WWII. It is typical of the 8'7" height Mather cars.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/M%26W%201266.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@...>

Posted by: "cvsne" Which led to wonder if all the research we as a group do on freight
cars is real history or not. I don't know that any of us is working on
a PhD in Freightcarology . . . but I think the methodical approach some
apply to this research certainly qualifies as "history." The question
is does this type of research stand up to a citation in a scholarly
paper, or is it merely some offshoot of "popular" history.
For my money, a work like Tony's PFE book certainly qualifies -- a
short article with a drawing in a magazine does not. I think the use of
original sources and citations of same is likely the difference. John
White's books also pass muster.

While the books you mentioned count as history, short well researched articles count as well. It is quality, not quantity. You can certainly have big, poorly researched books as well. In general the closer you get to primary sources, the better.

On the other hand dismissing some histories as 'popular history' is a bit of an academic snobbery in some cases. A well written popular history can be a good place to start when first researching a subject.

Would like to use some sources in my research, but not sure where the
line should be drawn.

You could follow in Barbara Tuchman's footsteps and only use primary sources.

Posted by: "Thomas Baker" Although I doubt whether anyone will be doing a dissertation in history by showing a portfolio of freight car models, I think that knowledgeable individuals on this group have urged and--perhaps at times--dragged us into the realm of the historical. In this area of "history" one finds that not only are company memos, records, diagrams, and manufacturers' drawings primary sources but even an extant car itself is a primary source.

I would say that there are some freight car books that are more worthy than many of the dissertations I've read.

Posted by: "Eric Hansmann" After a twenty minute presentation I turned to the group for
questions. They were all pretty shocked at the quantity and quality
of material presented to them from sources that were completely
unknown to them.

Some of the early MRs could be considered primary sources, we went and photographed freight car X, received plans from the manufacturer and took our own measurements as well! A very narrow form of history, but that's what I like!

Posted by: "gerard_fitzgerald" This group discussed a similar topic some time ago. My most vivid
memory of that exchange were the very critical responses my post
received off line. My short answer to you is to read Novick's "That
Noble Dream: The Objectivity Question and the American Historical
Profession," esp chapters 1-9 and 13-15. The footnotes are extremely
useful.

Sounds interesting.... luckily available through interlibrary loan!

Jim Eckman

gary laakso asked:

What are the hours on Sunday for Naperville? The only information

i have seen states that the registration starts at noon on Thursday.

The flyer I have doesn't lay out a full schedule, but if it follows
previous year's, the show itself is over late Saturday night. Sundays
have included an informal breakfast pay-as-you-go get-together and
visits to local layouts and shops, otherwise we just check out and go
home. All the displays and vendor's booths (including Sunshine's) are
taken down Saturday night.

If it's going to be different this year, I'm sure someone will correct
me.

Tom Madden

Hello Richard,
Thanks again for the info.that you have provided,I am getting much closer to finding out how CDLX 1051 looked before WW2.Would the 15 S.T.C.Co. cars leased to Star Refining & Producing Co.have been painted silver and carry the Star name?I guess it is possible that the remnants of the name still on the car was on there before CDLX received these cars.This car as it exists now has absolutely no paint left on the tank and just patches on the frameThe car though is generally complete with no damage,just a lot of surface rust.The trucks ,which are in good shape have the following cast in lettering.
''PAT.Jan 13,1914'' ''F-502 over one axle and ''6-20 S.T.C.Co.'' C-5 over the next axle.Earlier I had stated that it was stenciled in 1933 for the U.P.,but after checking again the stencil reads as follows.'' REPKD A.T.6-6-37 U.P.R.R.''
As well I was able to find on the lower sides of the tank the name Los Angeles and further along about 12 ft. the name California.The lettering for these names was about six inches high.
I guess this is really not much more to go on but hopefully it will provide something of a clue ,as to this cars early appearance.
Sincerely
Dan Gledhill
A.P.R.Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
On Sep 2, 2007, at 9:48 PM, Dan Gledhill wrote:

Hello Again Richard,
Thanks for the information on CDLX 1051.I will have to go and take
another look at this car.
I'm pretty sure that it it has no heating piping in the ends of the
car,but may have some in the bottom ,toward the centre area.When the
local mill used it they stored bunker oil in it which requires heat in
order to pump it much as ashphalt would.This car also still retains
it's original K type brake cylinder and piping as it never left the
mill for around 50 years.It has no signs of ever being insulated and
all former logo and names were applied directly to the rivetted steel
plate side of the tank.It must have been shipped over U.P. lines as
there is the remnants of a servicing stencil on the frame for the year
of 1933 from that road.I will see what else I can find written on the
car.
Sincerely,Dan.Gledhill
Maintenance Engineer
Alberni Pacific Railway

Dan, the heater pipes installed by the California Despatch Line when
the cars were insulated had flanges on either side of the ends, and if
CDLX 1051 doesn't have those, then it wasn't one of the cars that was
insulated in the early 1940s. That it still has K brakes and a 1933
U.P. brake servicing stencil suggests that at some time in the 1930s it
was sold (perhaps written off by CDL owing to underframe or running
gear damage).

Richard Hendrickson








---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

Dwight asked, in part.... Did the Rock Island have company service tank cars?

The answer to that is yes. In the steam/diesel transition era, in addition to using some tenders from retired steam locomotives, the RI purchased around 90 used 10,000 gallon tank cars. They were numbered in the MOW series from 97500 to 97599. The RI frequently reused numbers in this series, and they did not appear in the ORER, so it is somewhat difficult to track.

They started with 16 cars in 1949 and 1950 that were ex-SHPX cars from the 10095 to 16426 series built in 1918 and 1919.

In 1955, they added at least 74 cars that were originally MPLX (Mexican Petroleum Corp) cars built by a variety of builders between 1917 and 1920 (ACF, GATC and STC.) The original MPLX numbers were between 249 and 1298. I can provide more specifics, off list if anyone is interested. I don't have any pictures of these cars either as MPLX or RI.

The RI continued to use second hand tank cars for fuel service through its demise in 1980.

Regards,
Steve Hile

Since my e-mail last week attempting to identify some freight cars in a 1945 photo of Vancouver, I've been attempting to match appropriate models. The Seaboard 1932 design cars were apparently once offered by F&C and by Sunshine, but my reading of the various lists available indicates that both are no longer in production. So I started thinking about a kitbash.

After considering what might be done with a red caboose PRR X29, I struck me that the car bore some resemblance to the X28 cars after the half door was removed. Then I remembered that the F&C X28 model lacks the quirky retro fit side panels, and thought it might be a good starting point? Both the Seaboard car and the F&C model are ten panel sides (or is that 5/5?). According to Ted Culotta's excellent The American Railway Association Standard Box Car of 1932 book, the Seaboard cars were 9'4" inside height. The one X28b drawing I've looked at puts the interior height at 9' 3 1/4. I have not been able to do a match of the dimensions for the car ends. And of course the extra rivets on the F&C PRR model would have to be removed.

I'm thinking if one were to add sill tabs and a new floor/underframe, it might come very close indeed. But since I've only a passing knowledge of both cars, I thought I'd ask for input here first.

Comments appreciated.

I guess I'd say that the more hobby publications look like real history - with a defined focus for research, identification of the available sources, a logical approach to using the sources available, presentation of the material and a discussion of the issues it raises - with citation to references - the more I enjoy it. One of my hobbies has become the research.

But at the same time, while I appreciate reading someone else's research and following up the references they cite, I have to admit that very often that just seems like too much work for my hobby time. Instead, while I can identify my research theme generally, I do not impose any discipline on it - I read what I want, make notes that are only so good, obtain copies of documents or measurements of rolling stock as the opportunity arises, check out the resources I can get my hands on, etc. But I fail to identify potentially valuable resources; even those I know of do not always get my time or money; - I do not deliberately set out all of the directions I intend to go, and then methodically go through them. I let precious resources - folks with memories of how things were - pass in and out of my life without being diligent to capture their memories. I change sub-topics as the whim of the moment or week or month as something new strikes me, and often leave areas only partially researched. And I find it very enjoyable....

So while I value a true scholarly historical approach and can see pushing the hobby somewhat further in that direction, I don't.think we usually make the grade. And I doubt we will ever want to.

Rob Kirkham

--- In STMFC@..., Bob Karig <karig@...> wrote:

Dean,

AB brakes began showing up in interchange service as experimental

at the end of 1932 and were required on all new cars built after
September 1, 1933. Thus, it's not very likely that any USRA-style
twin hoppers were built new with AB brakes.

As far as detailing the USRA, one of the big differences is that

the train line runs down the side of the car below the side sill
rather than through the center sill as on the USRA-to-SSC conversion
I did for the article.

In my book that's coming out this fall, there are plans and several
pictures of the USRA twin hopper that show these details. If you

want to look at one up close and personal, there's a USRA twin hopper
on display at Steamtown.

Bob

Thanks for the info on the train line.
The trouble with the USRA car at Steamtown is that it has probably
been upgraded to AB brakes, etc. I would like to model well-used,
but "unimproved" versions as they would have ran in the late 30's.
I'm sure many others on this list don't need near as many K brakes,
truss rods, and arch bar, T-section, and Andrews trucks as I do. I
also seem to need a fair number of National B-1 trucks... due to my
choice of roads. I enjoy that my roster should have a
different "look" than others who model post-WWII.

Dean Payne

For those interested, I've posted a file that details where ships
were constructed that had large caliber main batteries. This list
covers ships that were either still around or were constructed
during World War II.

The list of ship yards involved in building these ships was centered
around Boston, New York, Philadelphia and Norfolk/Newport News. A
couple were built at Mare Island, near Vallejo, California.

This gives you an idea how many large caliber guns were still around
at the time of WW II and even into the 90s. It also gives you a
sense of how many models of a give size there were.

The yards which maintained these ships could be very different from
the yards that built them, so the network of railways involved in
moving these weapons was quite large. The turret housing three 16
inch guns of the Iowa class ships weighed in at over 1700 tons, and
they could actually be removed from the ship for repair. Not many
cranes could make that kind of lift during WWII. Bremerton, for
example, never built a "big gun" ship, but it was a key overhaul and
repair yard for them. The damaged battleships which survived Pearl
Harbor were repaired at Bremerton.

The reason some ships are listed that were not completed or never
saw service is that the guns were still manufactured for many of
them and then had to be moved and stored for use as back-ups in
other ships.

Dave Staplin


--- In STMFC@..., "staplindave" <staplindave@...> wrote:

Sorry to be late responding on this, but to consider where these

flats

might have appeared, you have to consider what the supply and
distribution network needs were.

1. Where were the barrels manufactured?
2. Where were they tested?
3. Where were they stored?
3. Where were the ships built that had them installed?
4. Where were the ships overhauled and maintained?

To handle the turrets and barrels, very large cranes were required

at

dockside and not every yard, civilian or Navy, had such

facilities. I

know that Bremerton, Philadelphia and Pearl Harbor did have such
cranes. I'm guessing Norfolk did aas well. When you consider

Pearl,

then there is the question of where these barrels were shipped

from.

Perhaps Ulithi Atoll, a major forward base eventually developed

the

capability

As information, a very large naval rifle could handle only 200 to

300

rounds before the barrel required re-lining.

There have been some good answers on the storage and testing

locations

and I have a lot of info on the yarding both for original

construction

and overhauls done on the battleships and battle cruisers of the

US

Navy. A lot of that is currently packed.

Some foreign capital ships were yarded in the US for repairs as

well,

mostly English.

That a yard built warships does not mean they handled these large
rifles, because the Navy and ship building industry assigned

certain

ship classes to certain yards during WWII to get economies of

scale in

the construction.

Dave Staplin



--- In STMFC@..., Denny Anspach <danspach@> wrote:

Perhaps I have missed something. What documentation is there

that

these flats ever visited Hawthorne, San Francisco, or

Bremerton; or

ever went off line to the west coast at all? In the back of my

mind,

were not these flats primarily to haul the barrels to and from

the

Watervliet Arsenal to Philadelphia or Dahlgren?

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

Dear Marty,

This group discussed a similar topic some time ago. My most vivid
memory of that exchange were the very critical responses my post
received off line. My short answer to you is to read Novick's "That
Noble Dream: The Objectivity Question and the American Historical
Profession," esp chapters 1-9 and 13-15. The footnotes are extremely
useful.

Best,

Gerry


Dr. Gerard J. Fitzgerald
Program in Public Health, New York University
2007 John C. Haas Postdoctoral Fellow in the History of Chemical
Industries Chemical Heritage Foundation
gfitzgerald@...

Rather than buying the HO Lifelike car, Bud could find a drawing:

The Mather boxcar: draft horse of American boxcars
Railroad Model Craftsman, February 1991 page 85

As cited in the Kalmbach index. I have not dug out the issue to see
which version of the car is shown, but I suspect the drawing plus some
photos could be interpolated into the required version.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:45 PM, wabash2813 wrote:

What would be wrong with copying an HO version? Weren't these standard
Mather house cars?

What would be wrong with this idea is that there really were no
"standard" Mather box cars; there were at least three different
versions of the 40'4" IL cars, all differing in height. The Life-Like
models represent the version with the lowest height (and thus are
actually incorrect for the MWR cars) while the MWR cars were either
somewhat taller (the 1101-1185 and 1201-1275 series) or quite a bit
taller (the 1276-1300 series).

Richard Hendrickson


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

It sure makes sense to me that there was no standard Mther design (s).

After all, it is touted that Mather used standard sturctural
shapes "so they could be easily repaired". Since they ahd no tooling
for pressed parts there really would be little advantage in having
standard designs. Which is typical of small manufacturing operations.

Chuck Yungkurth




--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:45 PM, wabash2813 wrote:

What would be wrong with copying an HO version? Weren't these

standard

Mather house cars?

What would be wrong with this idea is that there really were no
"standard" Mather box cars; there were at least three different
versions of the 40'4" IL cars, all differing in height. The Life-

Like

models represent the version with the lowest height (and thus are
actually incorrect for the MWR cars) while the MWR cars were either
somewhat taller (the 1101-1185 and 1201-1275 series) or quite a bit
taller (the 1276-1300 series).

Richard Hendrickson


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

On Sep 4, 2007, at 12:45 PM, wabash2813 wrote:

What would be wrong with copying an HO version? Weren't these standard
Mather house cars?

What would be wrong with this idea is that there really were no
"standard" Mather box cars; there were at least three different
versions of the 40'4" IL cars, all differing in height. The Life-Like
models represent the version with the lowest height (and thus are
actually incorrect for the MWR cars) while the MWR cars were either
somewhat taller (the 1101-1185 and 1201-1275 series) or quite a bit
taller (the 1276-1300 series).

Richard Hendrickson