On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:35 AM, rockroll50401 wrote:

I'm surprised there isn't at least one report from last weekends NMRA
show. No closet vesties?

NMRA? What's the NMRA?

Richard Hendrickson

On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:15 AM, Miller, Andrew S. wrote:

So the NG lines (which could still use K brakes) must have been able
to pick up good used brake parts cheap in the early 50s.

Well, only to a limited extent because NG K brakes were smaller in size
than their standard gauge equivalents.

Richard Hendrickson

Sometimes it makes sense to have separate units for different functions, especially if they each have their
own wear and repair profiles. Combining them into one unit makes it heavier to remove, work on, and replace.
It may also have reduced inventory levels as the separte parts can be arranged as necessary on different car types
(box cars, tank cars, flats, hoppers, (almost said container well cars, but they would be out of era), etc...
Charlie Vlk

Which brings up I question I had before. Since on more modern cars space is
not an issue, why are the brake cylinder, reservoir and triple valve split
up? Seems to me you could save a lot of piping mounting them as a unit.


.

On Jul 31, 2007, at 12:42 PM, Ray Meyer wrote:

Which brings up I question I had before. Since on more modern cars
space is
not an issue, why are the brake cylinder, reservoir and triple valve
split
up? Seems to me you could save a lot of piping mounting them as a
unit.

It wasn't always true that space was ample; think of mounting air brake
equipment at the ends of hopper cars under the slope sheets. Weight
was also an issue; a combined cylinder/reservoir/AB valve would have
been a large, heavy unit and difficult to mount on, for example, a tank
car underframe without massive structural members to support it.
Separate components also made sense from a maintenance point of view;
with three different major elements to the system, it was both simpler
and faster to change out any one of them without disturbing the others.

Richard Hendrickson

Ray -

Thank you very much for the diagram copy! I know almost nothing
about L&N freight cars!

One other dimension which leads me to believe these cars had steel
floors when built is the 6'-6" ExH for the L&N cars vs the 6'-7 1/2"
ExH for the NYC cars. Both the L&N and NYC cars have 3'-0" IH, so,
if the L&N cars were 1-1/2" lower overall, one might deduce that
thicker wood flooring in the NYC cars was not present in the L&N
cars. However, I have been in trouble before making deductions on
this list!! In fact, 1-1/2" difference in ExH is equally plausable
because of different truck design or body bolster design between the
two cars. The height of the side on the NYC car is 4'-3", according
to the general arrangement drawings.

I am an "O" scaler. I have a brass imported model of an LH&StL stock
car (made with CBC plans) that became L&N at some point in the
1930's. Someday, I hope to find a photo of that car as an L&N car so
I can paint and detail it.

Have to get back to work! Thanks again!

Aonly Tonly Kott (A.T. Kott)

--- In STMFC@..., Ray Breyer <rtbsvrr69@...> wrote:

Hi AT,

>>proto48er <atkott@...> wrote:
>>I have a couple of questions about L&N #25300-#25799 steel

gondolas

First question: Did these cars have steel floors?

The 1940 diagram for these cars doesn't say one way or the other.

Neither do most of the L&N car diagrams, unless they're rebuilds.

Third question: Does anyone have a diagram (from a RR diagram

book) or

a general arrangement drawing for these cars

I do; I've got the 1940, 1955 and 1970 (voided cars) L&N freight

car diagram books. I'll pass the page in question to you offlist in a
second.

Hope this helps!

Ray Breyer



---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on

Yahoo! TV.

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

Hi AT,

>>proto48er <atkott@...> wrote:
>>I have a couple of questions about L&N #25300-#25799 steel gondolas

First question: Did these cars have steel floors?

The 1940 diagram for these cars doesn't say one way or the other. Neither do most of the L&N car diagrams, unless they're rebuilds.

Third question: Does anyone have a diagram (from a RR diagram book) or
a general arrangement drawing for these cars

I do; I've got the 1940, 1955 and 1970 (voided cars) L&N freight car diagram books. I'll pass the page in question to you offlist in a second.

Hope this helps!

Ray Breyer



---------------------------------
Ready for the edge of your seat? Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV.

Which brings up I question I had before. Since on more modern cars space is
not an issue, why are the brake cylinder, reservoir and triple valve split
up? Seems to me you could save a lot of piping mounting them as a unit.

--
Atty Raymond G. Meyer
110 E. Main St
Port Washington, WI 53074
262-284-5566
rgmeyer2@...

Guys -

I have a couple of questions about L&N #25300-#25799 steel gondolas
that superficially look like they might be USRA clones. They are 45'-
0" inside length, 47'-6 1/4" length over strikers, with 36'-6 1/4"
truck centers. Actual USRA "clones" on NYC (with similar Dred. drop
ends) are 46'-0" IL, 48'-7" L over strikers, with 37'-7" truck centers,
so these L&N cars are a little smaller.

First question: Did these cars have steel floors? ORER data indicates
an all steel car, while other entries for L&N gons indicate "wood
floors" if they had wood flooring (ejusdem generis). All the other
USRA "clones" I am aware of had wood floors as-built.

Second question: Does anyone know the whereabouts of a good photo of
these cars in service, preferably in the late 1940's? All I have is a
small photo in the 1931 CBC.

Third question: Does anyone have a diagram (from a RR diagram book) or
a general arrangement drawing for these cars, or know where one can be
seen?

Thanks in advance!! I want to build up a brass model of one of these
cars.

A.T. Kott

(Which brings me to recall a story - A friend from a very small town
in west Texas only had "J." as a first name, and "B." as a middle
name. When he was drafted into the Army years ago, they could not deal
with the use of initials only, so he became "Jonly Bonly" from that
point on!)

Chet,

You are exactly right! I guess you know where freight comes from.

Mont Switzer

Chet French <cfrench@...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., Mont Switzer <mhts_switzerm@...> wrote:

Kurt,

Under normal circumstances there is a lot of cement dust flying

around in a cement plant. They do a better job of controlling it now
than back in the 1950's , but it is still all over the place. So a
car setting in a cement plant awaiting loading and/or spotted for
loading would be subject to this dust. The same conditions could
exist with the consignee also.

And then there is the possibility that while the car was in the

cement plant something terrible happened which means heavy dust.
This happened to my automobile in the 1960's (I was driving a steam
era auto at the time) and I had to rub out the paint to get rid of
the cement dust.

Funny you should ask about cement. I'm in the process of

weathering a B&O N-34 covered cement hopper.

Looks like the Monon is going to receive some cement business from
the B&O at Mitchell, IN., from the old Lehigh Portland Cement plant.

Chet French
Dixon, IL






---------------------------------
Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha!
Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games.

--- In STMFC@..., "Miller, Andrew S." <asmiller@...> wrote:
... Also, narrow gauge lines weren't covered by the 8/53

interchange rule and so never converted to AB equipment. The
hypothetical caboose in question would almost certainly have had K
brakes in 1940 (possibly KDs if mounting space under the car were
limited).

Richard Hendrickson

In addition, K equipment was available with different size brake
cylinders, depending on the weight of the car it was going to be
applied to. Use the Grandt Line NG K brake set for your caboose; it
models the 8" X 12" cylinder typically found on NG equipment, and
comes with extra heads so it can be used to model KD equipment. Every
other K brake set available models the 10" X 12" cylinder commonly
used on standard gauge freightcars.

To tie this back into the topic of this list, some standard gauge
cabooses were light enough to use 8" cylinders, so the Grandt Line set
is perfect for them, also. The wood cabooses on the Soo Line all had
8" KC equipment, and when the cars were later equipped with AB brakes,
they kept the original 8" cylinders with a flat plate steel head
installed in place of the reservoir.

Dennis Storzek

I was there but really didn't pay attention to the HO side of things....
did notice that Bachmann is reissuing their RTR freight cars with more accurate-looking paint schemes...
they are going to have a Peter Witt streetcar with real operating trolley pole with DCC...not a trainset item
(suitable for a steam era flatcar load at least!!). They also showed C&O, NKP and PM Berkshires with
road-specific details and tenders to pull freight cars (and a Polar Express trainset)....
In N Fox Valley Models showed out-of-era modern boxcars. All the HO items that did catch my eye
don't fall within the STMFC.
There may have been more but anything Hot for this list missed my radar.....
Charlie Vlk (that IS my full name!!!)

I'm surprised there isn't at least one report from last weekends NMRA
show. No closet vesties?
Clark W Propst

Bruce Smith wrote:

Application of the split K systems was usually due to space issues, although the PRR seems to
have been very fond of the KD for almost all situations.

Hard to fault the Pennsy's logic on this one; after all, the AB system was "split" too.

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

So the NG lines (which could still use K brakes) must have been able
to pick up good used brake parts cheap in the early 50s.

regards,

Andy Miller

On Jul 31, 2007, at 9:09 AM, Bruce Smith wrote:

On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Norm wrote:

> The ultimate usage for the info is to determine which type of brake
> gear to put on a kitbashed -- but plausible -- narrow gauge
> short line caboose for a similarly mythical but plausible line
> running from the interior to the coast of Maine in 1940.
>
> What I'd like to find is some sort of chart or descriptive info
> showing the differences between the various types of gear: K vs.
> KC vs. AB and the years of usage.

Norm,

Um... as to the latter -
K - from around 1900 to now (banned in interchange 1953)
AB - from around 1931 to now (required on all newly built cars in
1933)

Close. K brakes were banned in interchange in August, 1953. AB brakes
were installed experimentally as early as 1931 but not required on new
construction until 1934. After that, AB equipment was supposed to be
applied on older cars whenever they received major repairs or
rebuilding, but many car owners ignored that requirement through the
1930s and early 1940s owing to depression-era economics and then to
World War II shortages of materials. There was a big scramble in the
early 1950s to replace K brakes with ABs on older cars before the 8/53
deadline. Also, narrow gauge lines weren't covered by the 8/53
interchange rule and so never converted to AB equipment. The
hypothetical caboose in question would almost certainly have had K
brakes in 1940 (possibly KDs if mounting space under the car were
limited).

Richard Hendrickson

Thanks Tim, that's one of the few Cyc's I have.

Richard Wilkens

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

There is a builder's photograph and diagram of UP 68100 in
the 1961 Car Builder's Cyclopedia, page 304.

Tim O'

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

Trying to locate some historical info on three freight cars at

the

Yakima Valley Trolleys Museum in Washington State.

UP 68130 - Union Pacific Tankcar built May 1958, Class O-50-7,

ICC

103AW. This was brought to the YVT after the eruption of Mount

St.

Helens to clear ash. Again any info on builder, register page
drawing, and what service was this car used in.

Thanks,

Richard Wilkens

Hi Richard

An equipment drawing for this car series is in Jim
Ehernberger's "Union Pacific Freight Car Diagrams Circa 1979,

Volume

#2": Built by GATC 1958, 50 cars in series 68100-68149; Acid

Service

(Spec. 103A-W); Diagram F-13-14, Drawn 10-14-59.

I don't know what you mean by "register page drawing", but if you
contact me off list I can send you a scan of this diagram.

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, WY

On Jul 31, 2007, at 10:36 AM, Norm wrote:

The ultimate usage for the info is to determine which type of brake gear to put on a kitbashed -- but plausible -- narrow gauge
short line caboose for a similarly mythical but plausible line running from the interior to the coast of Maine in 1940.

What I'd like to find is some sort of chart or descriptive info showing the differences between the various types of gear: K vs.
KC vs. AB and the years of usage.

Norm,

Um... as to the latter -
K - from around 1900 to now (banned in interchange 1953)
AB - from around 1931 to now (required on all newly built cars in 1933)

Just because K brakes were banned from INTERCHANGE, it does not mean that they disappeared. In fact, there are museum cars with functioning K brakes in service, and certainly for years after the interchange deadline, RRs had MOW and company service cars with K brakes.

As to your first question, the KC and KD were simply variations of the K brake. The KC was the combined type where the reservoir and cylinder were together and the KD was the "split" type where the reservoir and cylinder were separate. Application of the split K systems was usually due to space issues, although the PRR seems to have been very fond of the KD for almost all situations.

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

Four of the last five messages are in violation of STMFC rules. Members ARE required to sign messages with their full name...first and last.

As an alternative, members may elect to have an Email address in which their full name is positioned to the left of the "@" sign. Failure to follow this simple rule...as I've said many times, even I know my first AND last name...will as of now result in being placed in Moderate Jail. This is not a good thing because not only the food is bad [ I prepare it ], but your messages may not be approved for days. So, for those that either don't know your last name, can't remember it or simply can't spell it, do your homework and find it. Thanks.

Sigh.

Mike Brock...becoming more and more appreciative of my second grade teacher
STMFC Owner

The ultimate usage for the info is to determine which type of brake gear to put on a kitbashed -- but plausible -- narrow gauge short line caboose for a similarly mythical but plausible line running from the interior to the coast of Maine in 1940.

What I'd like to find is some sort of chart or descriptive info showing the differences between the various types of gear: K vs. KC vs. AB and the years of usage.

TIA
Norm