Date   

Re: 3-D printers in the news

Nolan Hinshaw
 

On May 7, 2007, at 6:52 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

This subject has come up before (like printing rivets) so I
thought there might be some interest in this article & photo..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/technology/07copy.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/07/science/ NYTde3DPrinter34.jpg
Thanks; some of my friends in IPMS are going nuts over the
rate at which prices for these things are dropping.
--
Nolan Hinshaw
San Francisco


Re: Office of Defense Transportation Service Order #95

Russ Strodtz <sheridan@...>
 

Tim,

That brings up a question. As my employer had hundreds of
them when did they start to convert standard reefers into
slope sheet and conveyor bulk potato cars?

Russ

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Gilbert
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, 07 May, 2007 09:55
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Office of Defense Transportation Service
Order #95



There were still some ICC orders pertaining to reefers remaining
on
6/8/48: - one, prohibiting loading watermelons in the southeast;
another
prohibiting the loading of bulk potatoes in reefers. The latter
prohibition was due to the potential damages caused by
mechanical
unloading.

Tim Gilbert


Re: Southern Pacific Reefer 37323

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

gary laakso wrote:
Locomotive Quarterly, Fall 1992, has a picture of a reefer lettered as Southern Pacific 37323 in what appears to be standard PFE colors in El Paso, TX in March , 1949. I assume from the number that it was from the PFE R-40-2 class. A second grab iron has been added while the original wood platform around the ice hatches was retained. The car appears to be in a passenger yard. I took a quick look in my handy Pacific Fruit Express book and did not locate a reference to the car. How large a class was this on SP and was it in general service?
These cars are not in the PFE book because they were owned by SP, not PFE. Since all of SP's (and UP's) revenue reefer needs were covered by PFE, the two railroads owned only such equipment as was needed for company ice service (section crews, etc.) and in some cases for passenger AC ice at remote locations. That's what SP 37323 was doing.
They are covered in Chapter 4, Volume 4, Box Cars, of my series on SP Freight Cars. They did not have PFE origins, but were inherited when SP took over the EP&SW in 1924. There were just 20 of these cars. If you want to know more, let me know (or, of course, consult the book).

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: Office of Defense Transportation Service Order #95

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Bob Chaparro wrote:

Around the start of World War II the Office of Defense Transportation
issued Service Order #95. This order in effect transferred the routing
of reefers from the car owners to the Refrigerator Car Section of the
AAR's Car Service Bureau. Reefers were used where and as needed
regardless of ownership, and returned to their "home lines" as was
possible.

The reefers of the two biggest fleets, PFE and SFRD, ended up in
locations seldom see before or after the era of Service Order #95.

My question is, when did Service Order #95 end? One source I consulted
claims 1947 and sources on this list cite both 1948 and 1949.
Bob,

According to the "Proceedings of the AAR's Superintendents Convention" held in Chicago on June 8th, 1948, on page 86, the Manager of the AAR's Reefer section, CW Taylor, the "tide" orders (Service Order #95) had been suspended shortly before the Convention. The hope was that the reefers would be "back where they belonged" by the fall.

There were still some ICC orders pertaining to reefers remaining on 6/8/48: - one, prohibiting loading watermelons in the southeast; another prohibiting the loading of bulk potatoes in reefers. The latter prohibition was due to the potential damages caused by mechanical unloading.

Tim Gilbert


3-D printers in the news

Tim O'Connor
 

This subject has come up before (like printing rivets) so I
thought there might be some interest in this article & photo..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/07/technology/07copy.html
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/05/07/science/NYTde3DPrinter34.jpg

If you don't have a NY Times account use this: avici/avici

Tim O'Connor


Re: Southern Pacific Reefer 37323

Storey Lindsay
 

Gary,

Southern Pacific 37320~37339, 20 cars, steel underframe, 35-ton, ex-EPSW, built 1922.

Storey Lindsay
Celje, Slovenia

----- Original Message -----
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
To: "STMFC" <STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 11:39
Subject: [STMFC] Southern Pacific Reefer 37323


Locomotive Quarterly, Fall 1992, has a picture of a reefer lettered as Southern Pacific 37323 in what appears to be standard PFE colors in El Paso, TX in March , 1949. I assume from the number that it was from the PFE R-40-2 class. A second grab iron has been added while the original wood platform around the ice hatches was retained. The car appears to be in a passenger yard. I took a quick look in my handy Pacific Fruit Express book and did not locate a reference to the car. How large a class was this on SP and was it in general service?


gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


Re: Southern Pacific Reefer 37323

Tim O'Connor
 

Gary

I'm assuming you mean a PFE reefer. SP had a very small
number of reefers but I don't think any were PFE designs.

The original R-40-2 number series was 36563-38562: 2,000 cars.
All of them were retired from this series before 1950. Many were
given new numbers e.g. 70001-71272, 71301-71358, etc. The PFE
book says 557 were still in service in original numbers in 1947.
So your photo may be one of the last of the original cars.

Tim O'Connor

At 5/7/2007 05:39 AM Monday, you wrote:
Locomotive Quarterly, Fall 1992, has a picture of a reefer lettered as Southern Pacific 37323 in what appears to be standard PFE colors in El Paso, TX in March , 1949. I assume from the number that it was from the PFE R-40-2 class. A second grab iron has been added while the original wood platform around the ice hatches was retained. The car appears to be in a passenger yard. I took a quick look in my handy Pacific Fruit Express book and did not locate a reference to the car. How large a class was this on SP and was it in general service?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981
Ah, Ha! I'd forgotten all about that photo; The six-rung side ladders
are puzzling. All of the X29/ARA cars had either six-rung ladders with
a single grab iron below them or seven-rung ladders. Why would the Army
have replaced the original ladders with new ones?
Who knows? Replacement ladders and sill steps are not unusual for 50+
year old freight cars. My photos of ex-B&O M-26's show more than one
style of replacement ladders and sill steps.

That the car definitely was not a former Pennsy X29 is evidenced by
the side sheathing arrangement and (assuming they were original) by
the trucks.
As I said the prototype appears to be a 1923 ARA design, not an X29. I
was only uncertain about the model chosen to represent it. Also, many of
these cars had replacement trucks by 1958 -- my photos of LNE cars show
at least 3 different truck styles prior to 1961.

The door of the Army car is an exact duplicate of a door in one of my
LNE photos. So while it may not be original, it's at least not unusual
for that era.

Checking my Equipment Registers for 1959, and 1963, I cannot find any
government box cars that even SLIGHTLY resemble this style of box car.
But the 1950 ORER shows some cars that may match this one, although the
entries are inconsistent (like some box cars listed w/o door sizes). So
if I had to guess I'd say the car was interchanged from 1949 to around
the mid 1950's. And it would have had USAX reporting marks, not USA.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Bill,

There is a color photo of an Army X-29 type boxcar in one of Henderson's two CLASSIC FREIGHT CARS, THE SERIES books. I don't have the book in front of me (I'm posting from work), so I can't comment on the accuracy of the model's lettering. Whether the car Henderson presents is actually an X-29 or clone, or is one of the similar cars with slightly different dimensions, is beyond me. It certainly seems to be a very low car. Maybe the RC car isn't so inaccurate after all.

The Army purchased some very interesting cars in the 1940s that had flat X-29 ends, 12-side panels, and an inside height of 10' 6". They looked something like an X-29 on steroids. Some had end doors (possibly for use in troop trains), and some did not. A plain boxcar of this type is in use for MW service on the Shenandoah Valley Railroad, and one with end doors is the food car on the NRHS train that runs over the Buckingham Branch Railroad (both Virginia shortlines).

Many large military posts had captive cars that did not go off base, as well as cars that were used in interchange service. Even after military cars were consolidated under the DODX reporting marks, there were still oddly-lettered captive cars used by all four of the major services (I've yet to discover that the Coast Guard had any rail equipment of its own, though there was a CV diesel painted in their honor).

Kind regards,


Garth

bill_d_goat wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "Arnold van Heyst" <mrdata1968@...> wrote:

Sirs,

Is this Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar correct?
http://cgi.ebay.com/Red-Caboose-RR-37054-07-HO-X-29-Boxcar-U-S-
ARMY_W0QQitemZ270116485567QQihZ017QQcategoryZ484QQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Regards,
Arnold van Heyst
Netherlands.

Dear Arnold
There were no U.S. Army boxcars (in any reporting marks) in my 1943 ORER. The Transportation Corps herald on the car indicates that such a car would be post WWII. My guess, subject to correction, is that the Army, buying boxcars post war would have bought newer cars than X-29s, which were built in the late '20s to early '30s, most of which had needed steel plates added at the bottom of the sides due to rust.
IMHO, these cars are not authentic.
Bill Williams


Re: Southern Pacific Reefer 37323

gary laakso
 

Sorry, the picture is on un-numbered page 16 of Locomotive Quarterly.

----- Original Message -----
From: gary laakso
To: STMFC
Sent: 5/7/2007 5:46:42 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Southern Pacific Reefer 37323


Locomotive Quarterly, Fall 1992, has a picture of a reefer lettered as Southern Pacific 37323 in what appears to be standard PFE colors in El Paso, TX in March , 1949. I assume from the number that it was from the PFE R-40-2 class. A second grab iron has been added while the original wood platform around the ice hatches was retained. The car appears to be in a passenger yard. I took a quick look in my handy Pacific Fruit Express book and did not locate a reference to the car. How large a class was this on SP and was it in general service?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


Southern Pacific Reefer 37323

gary laakso
 

Locomotive Quarterly, Fall 1992, has a picture of a reefer lettered as Southern Pacific 37323 in what appears to be standard PFE colors in El Paso, TX in March , 1949. I assume from the number that it was from the PFE R-40-2 class. A second grab iron has been added while the original wood platform around the ice hatches was retained. The car appears to be in a passenger yard. I took a quick look in my handy Pacific Fruit Express book and did not locate a reference to the car. How large a class was this on SP and was it in general service?


gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


Re: Office of Defense Transportation Service Order #95

Guy Wilber
 

In a message dated 5/7/2007 1:43:59 AM Central Daylight Time,
thecitrusbelt@... writes:

My question is, when did Service Order #95 end? One source I consulted
claims 1947 and sources on this list cite both 1948 and 1949.
Bob,

Service Order 95 was issued by the ICC, not the ODT, it was dated November
9, 1942. The second revision of Order 95 was issued on July 1, 1949. The
revisions within abandoned the pooling of refrigerator cars.

Regards,

Guy Wilber
West Bend, WI












************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


Office of Defense Transportation Service Order #95

Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@...>
 

Around the start of World War II the Office of Defense Transportation
issued Service Order #95. This order in effect transferred the routing
of reefers from the car owners to the Refrigerator Car Section of the
AAR's Car Service Bureau. Reefers were used where and as needed
regardless of ownership, and returned to their "home lines" as was
possible.

The reefers of the two biggest fleets, PFE and SFRD, ended up in
locations seldom see before or after the era of Service Order #95.

My question is, when did Service Order #95 end? One source I consulted
claims 1947 and sources on this list cite both 1948 and 1949.

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro
Mission Viejo/Hemet, CA


U S Army boxcars

Rupert & Maureen <gamlenz@...>
 

On the subject of U.S. Army boxcars, I previously raised the issue of 40 box cars with USA reporting marks (# 24167, 24169-82, 24184-88, 24190-95, 24197-24210) listed in the CB&Q ORER's in 1947 and 1948.

Comments at the time were -
"I guess that these box cars were "leased" by the CB&Q to as a convenient way to allow them into interchange service. There may have been a shortage of cars to haul ammunition, or they may have had special equipment to haul particular items. I doubt that they were released for general service".
and
"The Army historically used what by many standards would be considered outdated rolling stock (Navy & Air Force too for that matter). However some were in captive service so they were not as worn out as one might think considering their age."


The dimensions were shown as 36' 6" IL, 37' 9" OL, 8' 6" IW, 7' 10" IH, and 2432 cu. ft. capacity. Is anyone able to suggest a builder or build date for these.

Thanks

Rupert Gamlen
Auckland NZ


Re: CN boxcars

Eric Gagnon <mile179kingston@...>
 

Hi Frank, I have these cars listed in a copy of a 1943 "Official
Register of Passenger Train Equipment", under Canadian National
Railways.

Eric Gagnon
Kingston, Ontario

--- In STMFC@..., destron@... wrote:


I've found photos of CN boxcars numbered 11069 (1939 build date) and
11128
(1942? build date), but these aren't listed in my 1953 ORER. Does
anyone
know if these were renumbered at some point?

Frank Valoczy


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

. . . Academics are human too. . .

----- Original Message -----

I've dealt with a few that would disagree.

KL


Re: ADMIN: STMFC Policies Regarding Evaluations of Published Works

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

I'm glad this topic is being discussed. It's very important to those of us who are trying to develop accurate history.

On many lists I've made many statements of what I believe to be true. sometimes I'm corrected and shown to be partially wrong (totally wrong rarely). I welcome corrections of my erroneous statements. Not aht I'm happy about them - I hate to make mistakes. But My zest for historical accuracy overcomes my chagrin at being corrected - provided that it's reasonably polite and does not include personal criticism.

All of us who are trying to recall events or our experiences from 50 years ago are going to make mistakes, and there are many errors in published materials. Bur I hope we all share a common objective of documenting what actuall y happened.



Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478


Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

al_brown03
 

The flat ends got me to wondering if it's a Seaboard car, but on
reflection I think not. SAL's flat-end 40' boxcars either were '32
ARA cars with tabbed side sills (a foot taller, too), or were
originally single-sheathed. Many of the flat-end single-sheathed cars
(classes B-4 and B-5) were rebuilt with steel sides, but they had
fishbelly underframes which they kept: see John Golden's article in
Lines South 4th/04, pp 22-30. The Army car appears to have a straight
underframe.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


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

On May 6, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Brian Leppert wrote:

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars
vol. 7".
It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and
bottom
hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my information on
X29
and 1923 ARA boxcars is out at work, so I can't do much to
figure out
it's heritage. But the side grab irons are completely attached
to the
side sheathing, not the ends. Nor is the side ladder attached to
the
ends.

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981, at the Earle Naval Weapons Station,
NJ.

Ah, Ha! I'd forgotten all about that photo; since I model 1947, it
was
of no interest to me. Now that I've been reminded of it, however,
several things about it strike me as interesting. First off, there
was
no car number (it had been painted out), only a defense department
serial number, and it still had solid bearing trucks. Therefore,
at
the time the car was photographed in 1981, it could not have been
in
interchange service and was confined to the Earle Naval Weapons
Station. However, all of the dimensional and weight data required
for
interchange were stenciled on it, from which it may be inferred
that it
was (or could have been) used in interchange service at some
earlier
date. Also, the interior dimensions don't correspond with those of
any
car as originally built to the X29/ARA design, so the army must
have
added some sort of interior lining or special loading equipment.
It's
notable that the car still had its original riveted steel roof as
late
as 1981, since those roofs were notorious for their tendency to
leak.
Isn't there an old saying about keeping your powder dry? The six-
rung
side ladders are puzzling. All of the X29/ARA cars had either six-
rung
ladders with a single grab iron below them or seven-rung ladders.
Why
would the army have replaced the original ladders with new ones?
On
the other hand, why would I assume there's a rational explanation
for
anything done by the army? That the car definitely was not a
former
Pennsy X29 is evidenced by the side sheathing arrangement and
(assuming
they were original) by the trucks. But on the evidence in the
photo, I
haven't been able to figure out what its origin was. The ladders
were
certainly not original, the door probably was not, and the trucks
may
well have been replacements, which doesn't leave much in the way of
distinctive features to work from.

Richard Hendrickson




Re: Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar.

Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 6, 2007, at 3:20 PM, Brian Leppert wrote:

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars vol. 7".
It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and bottom
hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my information on X29
and 1923 ARA boxcars is out at work, so I can't do much to figure out
it's heritage. But the side grab irons are completely attached to the
side sheathing, not the ends. Nor is the side ladder attached to the
ends.

This car was rebuilt in 1949. Reweighed LKOD 10-58.
It was photographed in 1981, at the Earle Naval Weapons Station, NJ.
Ah, Ha! I'd forgotten all about that photo; since I model 1947, it was
of no interest to me. Now that I've been reminded of it, however,
several things about it strike me as interesting. First off, there was
no car number (it had been painted out), only a defense department
serial number, and it still had solid bearing trucks. Therefore, at
the time the car was photographed in 1981, it could not have been in
interchange service and was confined to the Earle Naval Weapons
Station. However, all of the dimensional and weight data required for
interchange were stenciled on it, from which it may be inferred that it
was (or could have been) used in interchange service at some earlier
date. Also, the interior dimensions don't correspond with those of any
car as originally built to the X29/ARA design, so the army must have
added some sort of interior lining or special loading equipment. It's
notable that the car still had its original riveted steel roof as late
as 1981, since those roofs were notorious for their tendency to leak.
Isn't there an old saying about keeping your powder dry? The six-rung
side ladders are puzzling. All of the X29/ARA cars had either six-rung
ladders with a single grab iron below them or seven-rung ladders. Why
would the army have replaced the original ladders with new ones? On
the other hand, why would I assume there's a rational explanation for
anything done by the army? That the car definitely was not a former
Pennsy X29 is evidenced by the side sheathing arrangement and (assuming
they were original) by the trucks. But on the evidence in the photo, I
haven't been able to figure out what its origin was. The ladders were
certainly not original, the door probably was not, and the trucks may
well have been replacements, which doesn't leave much in the way of
distinctive features to work from.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Freight Conductor's Train Book

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

MDT 41825 was built as MDT 17825 in Sep 1923 and would ride the rails
until scrapped in 1953 after a 30 year career. Not exactly
a relic in Sep of 1947.


Roger Hinman

On May 6, 2007, at 3:32 PM, Russ Strodtz wrote:

MDT 41825 would certainly be
a relic.

133001 - 133020 of 195354