Russell,

These cars hung around a lot longer than you think. In the reefer book by Gene Green there is a photo of one in the early 60's no less. WHIW, these cars have been tooled by Westerfield; it's just a matter of when they are produced. I'm saving a chunk of shelf space for them. IIRC, they will be done for PRR, FGE, Matheson Dry Ice, ansd National Car.
Should add some real flavor to consists when done.

Fred Freitas

aquarussell <aquarussell@...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

Russel,

Are you refering to the ex-PRR, ex-FGE, NX owned R7 reefers

converted for

dry ice service (X23 style bracing)? These cars retained the vertical
shaft handbrake following application of AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

Hello,

Yes, that is the car. Thank you. I am modeling late WWII to the late
1950's. I have no idea when they were finally retired, but I have
seen a picture from 1947.

Thank you,
Russell Hedges

What are the hours on Sunday for Naperville? The only information i have seen states that the registration starts at noon on Thursday.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock

In scholarly work, interpretation is legitimate when done carefully.
It's OK to say "I believe this for reasons X and Y and Z" when the
reasons are well-supported; in general, leaps of logic should be
minimized, and the trail back to original sources should be kept as
short as possible. The foregoing is vague, I know, but every case is
different. If one couldn't interpret without talking to someone who'd
been there, anything beyond living memory would be unknowable. Some
knowledge is gone, but much isn't. The recent discussion about which
railroads got SS vs DS boxcars, and why, is an example (with freight
car content, no less). I think we wound up showing that we don't
really know; but the answers probably existed, at the time, in the
internal memos of railroad car departments. The trick is to find
them; many have been destroyed, but perhaps not all.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.



--- In STMFC@..., "Jack Burgess" <jack@...> wrote:

Dennis wrote:

I'll put my $.02 in. It's "real history" if the author can cite
primary sources, i.e. railroad or builder's records or articles in
contemporary trade press. If it's just a retelling of what the

author

heard somewhere or surmises from known facts, it's popular

history,

and must be viewed with an eye toward the fact that while the

author

believes something is true, it may not be.

That's why I always try to cite sources in these web discussions.

In a

recent post I cited an article by Lane in a 1973 issue of the

R&LHS

publication "Railroad History". If one wants to explore the

material

further, he can obtain the original article and find the source of
Lane's material, which are memoranda from the USRA files now in

the

National Archives. Real history will have an unbroken thread of
provenance all the way back to the source.

I generally agree with Dennis but not everything can be traced back

primary

sources. But history can be very unenlightening is all that is

written is

"what they did" and nothing about "why they did it". The "why" can

be

understood and reported if those responsible for the "what" are

still alive,

the reporter completely understands all of the factors that

influenced the

"why", and accurately reports it. But if that information isn't

available

from first-hand accounts, an author must try to understand things

based on

combining known facts and information and then arriving at

conclusions based

on that research. Is such reporting less than accurate? It could be

if the

reporter is biased or doesn't carefully weigh all of the known

information

before arriving at their conclusions. OTOH, the conclusions from

such

research might be completely accurate. In my own research, I always

use

terms such as "suggests" or "might be concluded" to show that a

statement is

an assumption based on facts. But because I can't provide citations

for the

statements, does that make it "popular history"?

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

Russel,

Are you refering to the ex-PRR, ex-FGE, NX owned R7 reefers

converted for

dry ice service (X23 style bracing)? These cars retained the vertical
shaft handbrake following application of AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

Hello,

Yes, that is the car. Thank you. I am modeling late WWII to the late
1950's. I have no idea when they were finally retired, but I have
seen a picture from 1947.

Thank you,
Russell Hedges

Notified this morning that this is available. Price is quite good, IMO.

It can be found on ABEbooks.com Don't know seller.
++++++++++++++++++++++
1. 1953 Car Builders' Cyclopedia of America Practice, Peck, C. B., Editor
Simmons-Boardman Publishing Co., 1953, Hardcover, , Red-cloth covers have
light soil; front hinge cracked. 1280 pages.

Bookseller: Chicago Rare Book Center, Evanston, IL
Price: US$ 95.00
++++++++++++++++++++++
Dave Nelson

Dennis wrote:

I'll put my $.02 in. It's "real history" if the author can cite
primary sources, i.e. railroad or builder's records or articles in
contemporary trade press. If it's just a retelling of what the author
heard somewhere or surmises from known facts, it's popular history,
and must be viewed with an eye toward the fact that while the author
believes something is true, it may not be.

That's why I always try to cite sources in these web discussions. In a
recent post I cited an article by Lane in a 1973 issue of the R&LHS
publication "Railroad History". If one wants to explore the material
further, he can obtain the original article and find the source of
Lane's material, which are memoranda from the USRA files now in the
National Archives. Real history will have an unbroken thread of
provenance all the way back to the source.

I generally agree with Dennis but not everything can be traced back primary
sources. But history can be very unenlightening is all that is written is
"what they did" and nothing about "why they did it". The "why" can be
understood and reported if those responsible for the "what" are still alive,
the reporter completely understands all of the factors that influenced the
"why", and accurately reports it. But if that information isn't available
from first-hand accounts, an author must try to understand things based on
combining known facts and information and then arriving at conclusions based
on that research. Is such reporting less than accurate? It could be if the
reporter is biased or doesn't carefully weigh all of the known information
before arriving at their conclusions. OTOH, the conclusions from such
research might be completely accurate. In my own research, I always use
terms such as "suggests" or "might be concluded" to show that a statement is
an assumption based on facts. But because I can't provide citations for the
statements, does that make it "popular history"?

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

--- 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.

Marty,

I'll put my $.02 in. It's "real history" if the author can cite
primary sources, i.e. railroad or builder's records or articles in
contemporary trade press. If it's just a retelling of what the author
heard somewhere or surmises from known facts, it's popular history,
and must be viewed with an eye toward the fact that while the author
believes something is true, it may not be.

That's why I always try to cite sources in these web discussions. In a
recent post I cited an article by Lane in a 1973 issue of the R&LHS
publication "Railroad History". If one wants to explore the material
further, he can obtain the original article and find the source of
Lane's material, which are memoranda from the USRA files now in the
National Archives. Real history will have an unbroken thread of
provenance all the way back to the source.

I also try to indicate when I am stating MY INTERPERATATION of the
historical record. What I write I believe to be true, but that doesn't
mean it is, and I'm always willing to have someone prove me wrong by
citing a source. That way, we all learn something.

Dennis

Marty,
Rather than risk the wrath of the moderator and begin discussing a
subject that is not freight car related, I'll respond to your query
offlist. :-)
Pierre Oliver

--- 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.

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.

Would like to use some sources in my research, but not sure where

the

line should be drawn.

Would appreciate any thoughts.

Marty McGuirk

Richard;

Put the number in "". The search engine is a little
too helpful and will not pull up the image without
them.

Steve M Stull
Winslow 7076

http://www3.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/spe/histphotos/

then typing in the search term 26735.

KL

____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

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.

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.

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

Would appreciate any thoughts.

Marty McGuirk

Hi Richard,
Yes, I would be interested in the lower height car 1200-1275 series. This was a 40' car correct? Many thanks for any scans you can send. Next step will be getting the distinctive decals.
I don't have many freight car photos myself. Mainly I started gathering 8 x 10's of LV equipment plus a few other roads, DL&W, NKP, etc. So if ever you're looking for anything from those roads that I may be able to reciprocate let me know.
Thanks again for your help!
Bud Rindfleisch

There was a typo in the original message.

The show is indeed Saturday and Sunday, Jan. 26 and 27, 2008.

Thanks again,

Dave Owens

--- In STMFC@..., "Dean Payne" <1payne1@...> wrote:

I've been wondering about a detail part wish list.

The branch pipe Tee bracket for the air brakes. I understand Kadee
has it on their PS-1 but it isn't available separately. While we're
wishing for air brake parts, let's also get the dirt collectors.
Also, an accurate clevis (or several different) to use instead of half
of a truss rod turnbuckle. I'm sure there are other underframe/brake
parts needed, I just can't think of any more right now.

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Riverside, California

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

On Sep 3, 2007, at 1:45 PM, bud9351 wrote:

Hi all,
For some time I have been interested in doing a Muncie & Western
Ball Line single sheathed boxcar. Two things preclude this
scratchbuilding project (S scale)a good photo of the side and end or
3/4 view, and hopefully, scale plans. Any help for this "off in the
future" project is appreciated.
Bud Rindfleisch

Bud, your project is complicated by the fact that MWR leased box cars
from Mather in two different sizes. As there were (ca. 1953) more cars
(75) in the 1200-1275 series than in the taller 1276-1299 series, you
probably will want to model the 1200-1275 series cars. AFAIK, there
are no drawings for either series, but I have good photos, including
end shots, of both series which I can scan for you. Let me know your
preferences.

Richard Hendrickson

On Sep 3, 2007, at 4:25 PM, Rob Kirkham wrote:

I've a couple of questions about the tank car shown:
1) it says its 8054 gals capacity. Since its in Canada, I suppose I
could
guess it was intending Imperial Gallons, but I doubt it. If Imperial
gallons, it would be 9672 US gallons. Is there a lettering standard or
tariff that would mandate which measure was used?

ISTX 1201-1210 are shown in the 7/43 ORER as having 8,000 gals.
(US) nominal capacity, and as Interstate Tank Car Corp. had
headquarters in Portsmouth, VA, there's no reason to assume that the
capacity is stenciled in Imperial rather than US gallons.

2) is the car recognisable by design, etc. I am thinking it may be a
Standard Tank product (a wild guess based on the bolsters/saddle
arrangment.
The tank is a five course radial design, with each seem riveted with
double
rivet rows. I think I see a K brake hanging below the walkway.

Rob, I'm pretty sure I can identify the car from the photo, but I can't
access the photo. Is there another URL for the image?

Richard Hendrickson


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

Folks:

I've just learned from John Sacerdote, the director of the Amherst
Railway Society's Big Railroad Hobby Show, that the 2008 show will be
expanded into a fourth building.

The Mallary building, which is on your left as you drive into the
Eastern States Exposition (or walk if you've parked in the big lot) is
the fourth building.

New vendors and manufacturers are being added, as well as additional
layouts and displays.

I think this is great news. The West Springfield Show is a great event
that I look forward to each year.

By the way, the date's of the 2008 show are Friday and Saturday, Jan. 26 and 27.

For more information:

http://www.railroadhobbyshow.com/index.asp

You'll notice a searchable database of vendors and exhibitors. That
will allow you to find who you're looking for online before you go to
the show.

All the best,

Dave Owens
One of the NE Proto Meet organizers

On Mon, September 3, 2007 1:12 pm, aquarussell wrote:

Hello,

I would like to model a Mathieson dry ice car, but the only model of
the vertical sidded car I have found has the early type K brakes. I
would like to model the same car as it was later, with type AB brakes.

The only picture I have found has the staff type brake wheel. Does
anyone know if the car still had that brake wheel after conversion to
AB brakes? Has anyone seen a drawing or picture that shows how the
undefloor components were arranged?

Thank you,
Russell Hedges

Russel,

Are you refering to the ex-PRR, ex-FGE, NX owned R7 reefers converted for
dry ice service (X23 style bracing)? These cars retained the vertical
shaft handbrake following application of AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

I'm looking at a photo of the copra/vegetable oil plant in Vancouver B.C. on
August 31, 1945, which shows this modest facility and tank car ISTX1231.
The plant was built by a Mr. Carpenter (of W.R. Carpenter Vegetable Oil
Manufacturing, and W.R. Carpenter (Canada) Ltd.) in about 1941 & 42. He was
an Australian, and owned copra plantations in the south seas. I imagine his
source of copra was cut off for a few years after Dec. 7/41 as newspaper
reports that were all excited about copra production in 1940/41 seems to
have gon silent, while vegetable oil (rape/canola) received the press in
later years. The claim at the time was that the plant could supply almost
all of Canada's copra oil needs for years to come. The by-products of
production were seen as a supplement for livestock feed. What happened in
later years as the plant focused more on vegetable oil is still something I
hope to reasearch.

The photo can be seen at the Vancouver Public Library site, at
http://www3.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/spe/histphotos/photos-search.htm, by typing
in the search term 26735. You'll have to click on the small text to the
left of the entry to see larger photo - and then it comes up. For a change,
its a nice clear photo!

I've a couple of questions about the tank car shown:
1) it says its 8054 gals capacity. Since its in Canada, I suppose I could
guess it was intending Imperial Gallons, but I doubt it. If Imperial
gallons, it would be 9672 US gallons. Is there a lettering standard or
tariff that would mandate which measure was used?
2) is the car recognisable by design, etc. I am thinking it may be a
Standard Tank product (a wild guess based on the bolsters/saddle arrangment.
The tank is a five course radial design, with each seem riveted with double
rivet rows. I think I see a K brake hanging below the walkway.

While at it, any comments on the remainder of the cars on the track? If I
were guessing, I'd say the second car and fourth car are of the same design,
with the third a little smaller. Oh, well, not a good angle to do more.

About the Carpenter operation and ISTX generally, does anyone know of any
connections to the USA - particularly in California, where some Vancouver
B.C. newspapers I've read seem to imply that Mr. Carpenter may have made his
residence in late 1941 or early 1942 through the duration of the pacific
war. I'm wondering if there may have been a north south flow to the tank
car traffic carrying copra oil as a result of his investments in North
America.

Any assistance appreciated as always.

Rob Kirkham