--- In STMFC@..., "Schuyler Larrabee"
<schuyler.larrabee@v...> wrote:

Manfred Lorenz:

Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems.
That is, if they are not named Fitz.

Except that ships' hulls are made of steel plate probably a minimum

of 1" thick, probably more.

Warships use plate 7-12" thick. Rail cars are built of steel

sheet, often 3/32" thick.

There is a difference.

SGL

Not that this has much to do with freight cars but ships are made of
individual plates welded to a steel frame, primarily for ease of
handling during construction, expansion, and contraction, and ease of
repair. It's a lot easier to replace several steel panels than an
entire hull, especially if the ship is afloat.

I would venture that freight cars are easier and cheaper to build
with several smaller standard components than one single metal side,
for example.

And warships haven't had hulls 7"-10" thick since the big gun
battleships, and even their hulls weren't that thick throughout. The
hulls on most modern ships -- not all, but most -- are steel ~1-3/4"
thick -- the upper works are made primarily from aluminum.

Marty McGuirk

Rob Kirkham wrote:

(snip)

So, for April 1930 edition, p.211, it reads:

The Railway Association of Canada reports location of freight cars on
March
1, based on returns from Algoma Central and Hudson Bay, Canadian
National,
Canadian Pacific, Dominion Atlantic, Kettle Valley, Northern Alberta,
Quebec
Central, Timiskaming and Northern Ontario, Temiscouata, and Toronto,
Hamilton and Buffalo Rys. as follows: -
1) cars owned, 204,306; -

Total Freight cars owned by Canadian Roads; the sum of lines 2, 3 & 4.

2) home cars on Canadian lines, 9,128; -

Canadian-owned cars on other Canadian Lines.

3) home cars on USA foreign lines 20,424; -

Canadian cars on US Lines.

4) home cars on home roads, 174,754; -

Canadian cars on home rails. (Could be overstated - see comments after
Line 7).

5) Canadian owned foreign cars on home roads, 6,406; -

Canadian RR-Owned Cars on other Canadian Lines (see note after comments
on line 7).

6) USA owned foreign cars on home roads, 20,802; -

US Railroad-owned Cars on Canadian Lines.

7) total cars on lines, 201,962; -

Total Railroad-Owned Cars on Canadian Lines (sum of 4,5 & 6). Figure
does not include privately owned cars as Total Cars on Line in the US did.

If these numbers are anything comparable to US Cars on Line data, a
certain number of cars were included in the railroad's roster which were
in non-revenue or MOW service. In the US, these cars were excluded from
the category "Home Cars on Home Roads." In Canada apparently they were
not, so the Canadians had to reduce the Canadian Owned Foreign Cars on
Home Roads as a balancing mechanism by the difference between 9,128 of
line 2 with the 2,722 (9,128-6,406) average non-revenue cars. In the US,
the equivalent Canadian Cars on Home Roads would have been reduced from
174,754 down to 172,032 - a reduction of 2,722 cars while the Canadian
Cars on other Canadian Roads would have been 9,128 as per line 2.

If these numbers are to be made compatible with US Cars on Line data,

Cars on Home Rails 172,032
Foreign Cars on Line 34,173
Total Cars on Line 206,205

The Foreign Cars on Line are the sum of Canadian RR-owned Cars on Other
Canadian Lines (9,128), US RR-Owned Cars on Canadian Lines (20,802),
Canadian-owned Private Car Lines (1,079) and American Privately Owned
Cars (3,164). The privately owned cars would include reefers like PFE,
FGEX, ART, WFEX, BREX, URTX, but not SFRD if the treatment was similar
to the US.

I hope this helps, Tim Gilbert

8) per cent. on lines to total owned, 98.8;
9) deficiency on lines to total owned, 2,344;
10) home cars in bad order, 12,051;
11) foreign cars in bad order, 158;
12) total cars in bad order, 12,209;
13) per cent. in bad order to cars on line, 6;
14) privately owned USA cars on line, 3,164;
15) privately owned Canadian cars on line, 1,079.

1) "Cars owned" seems straight forward. I think it means the total of
cars
owned by the reporting Canadian railways, where ever the cars may be, and
whether in use or not.

2), "Home cars on Canadian Lines", - Home cars means Canadian owners'
cars
on other Canadian railways - in other words, not at "home", but also
not in
the USA.

3) home cars on USA Foreign Lines - would be Canadian Railway cars
south of
the 49th on unaffiliated railways ? In other words, it doesn't count
Canadian Railway cars south of the 49th on Canadian railways trackage?

4) home cars on home roads - the number of cars of the owner presently
situated on the owner's tracks, whether in Canada or across the 49th?

5) Canadian owned foreign cars on home roads - no idea

6) USA owned foreign cars on home roads - means unaffiliated USA railways
cars on Canadian railway's tracks?

7) total cars on lines - includes total of all cars without
distinction by
owner, on lines of the listed railways, whether in the USA or Canada.

14) privately owned USA cars on line, - USA non-railway tank cars and
non-railway reefers?

15) privately owned Canadian cars on line, - i.e. non-railway owned
cars -
like tank cars?

I have a feeling there is an inconsistency in the use of the words:
"foreign", "USA", and "home", but I have not quite isolated it yet.

Comments?

Rob Kirkham



------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

* Visit your group "STMFC <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC>"
on the web.

* To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...
<mailto:STMFC-unsubscribe@...?subject=Unsubscribe>

* Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


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

List,

I believe that both the Walthers reefer and the BLI reefer are available
in the same early REA paint scheme. Here's the Walthers car:

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-5485

There's still no photo of the BLI car, but they do show a drawing of the
early paint scheme on the BLI website.

It looks like the same paint to me, with the possible exception of truck
color and quantity of end lettering.

Dan Miller

Hutchins dry lading roof - I have four neat drawings that illustrate construction of the Hutchins sheet steel roof system. Ted Culotta, did you send these to me? Contact me off list for a digital set.
Tom Houle





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@...

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

Guyz,

Have forwarded your question to John B. at Reboxx. If anyone has the answer, he will; and I'm sure he will post it.

Fred Freitas

Ted,
The MM article which covered the Milwaukee Road rib side cars
had a table which showed the various doors, ends, and roofs used on
each series. Several series were listed as having Hutchins roofs.
Photos show these to be single rectangular raised panels like the
Murphy. Just trying to get it straight in my head: there were
rectangular panel roofs which were marketed under the
name "Hutchins"? This would make sense out of the table in that
article.
Also, along with the discussion about single sheet vs multi-
panel roofs: The Milwaukee cars' roofs were welded at the seam caps,
which effectively made them one piece roofs. But the West Milwaukee
Shops were huge, very modern facilities (for the 1930s, at least!)
which could handle picking up a 40' x 9' piece of sheet metal. Were
other railroads' repair and construction forces geared to handle
this big chunk of steel? Take a look at the D&H chapter in the 1932
car book and there's a good picture of a roof being assembled by
hand. Let's assume that the roof would be built up out of two
halves, with the seam running longitudinally under the roof walk.
For a 1/4" thick sheet metal roof, that's roughly a 40' x 4.5' sheet
of steel. My Ryerson book says that 1/4" sheet weighs 10.21 pounds
per square foot. So that half-roof weighs 1840 pounds. That gets
kind of hard for two men to handle! On the other hand, a single
panel of a Murphy roof (12 panels) weighs about 150 pounds, which is
starting to sound like a two man job.
My money is on several of the theories already presented in
this string: Transportability, and repairability. Repairability
includes both the ability to have one damaged panel replaced, as
well as being able to handle the panels with reasonable size crews.
(I'm lumping railroad built or upgraded cars into the "repair"
category, since they would use the same facilities and crews.)
Now, to consider the reasons for making stamped car ends in
two or more pieces. If it was a matter of having large enough
presses to make the end in one piece, then how come there is a
horizontal seam in flat panel ends, such as those on the X29 cars?
The answer lies in the gage of the sheet used for the panels. On
both flat panel and the various corrugated ends, the bottom panel is
thicker than the top panel to resist the loads from shifting lading.
Going from 1/4" to 3/16" sheet on, say, a 9'x 5' upper end panel
saves 115 pounds. Hey, everything adds up. On refrigerator cars such
as the Phaudler cars which we've been discussing, the seams run
vertically. Because the lading is in tanks, there is no shifting
freight hitting the ends, so the lower portion of the ends does not
have to be thicker.

Sorry for drifting here... I find this structural stuff
fascinating!
Regards!
Phil Buchwald
>

Steve:

A shameless plug, but refer to the 1932 ARA box car book
(www.speedwitch.com) for more info on these two types of roofs.

The

Hutchins roof on C&O 4000-4500 is actually a "Murphy" rectangular

panel

roof manufactured not by Standard Railway Equip. but by
Chicago-Cleveland. For our purposes (HO scale), they are same and

the

differences are quite subtle anyway. These cars did NOT have the
Hutchins Dry Lading roof of the 'teens and 20s. They just used

the

same name on them. The radial roof on the 1932 ARA cars is a

Hutchins

radial roof.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@s...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Gentlemen ,Might suggest that you contact Reboxx directly.They have a
chart showing which set to use for most trucks.I have found them to be very
accommodating.Armand Premo

Thanks for your thought on that Walt. But if you are correct, what is number 2), "Home cars on Canadian Lines", and how does it differ from number 5? A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, etc.

Rob Kirkham

John, Brian & List,

The last list that I have is dated Spring 2005 and I received it from
J.P.'s people at the last Timonium train show several months ago.
Unfortunately, there is no listing for the Broadway Limited N&W Hopper
Cars. Checking the Reboxx website (Reboxx.com) does not help either as
it is out of date. With the upcoming Timonium train show approaching
the second week of October, perhaps we can find out whether or not, they
have wheel sets for the Broadway line.

Tom Olsen
7 boundary Road, West Branch
Newark, Delaware, 19711-7479
(302) 738-4292
tmolsen@...


Brian J Carlson wrote:

post to the list please since I have 3 to do myself.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

Guys,

Does anyone know the appropriate axle length for
Reboxx replacement wheelsets for the 70 ton trucks on
Broadway N&W hoppers? If so, please drop me a line at
Golden1014@.... I've got nine cars that are
scheduled for new wheelsets and I want to make sure I
get the right ones. Thanks!

John


John Golden
O'Fallon, IL
http://www.pbase.com/golden1014

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

Greg Martin wrote:

I am not sure what purpose it would serve to compare them together

not knowing which is correct, do you? Why compare one that might be
wrong to another that my be right? Shouldn't we first establish which
one best represents the prototype per the original drawing or doesn't
that matter????

Surely any sensible review would compare to the prototype,

whether of one or two models.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA

Thanks. You summed that up with more economy than I did! That was the
point I was trying to make.

Dean Payne

Manfred Lorenz:

Ships should do the same and have seem to have no problems.
That is, if they are not named Fitz.

Except that ships' hulls are made of steel plate probably a minimum of 1" thick, probably more.
Warships use plate 7-12" thick. Rail cars are built of steel sheet, often 3/32" thick.

There is a difference.

SGL

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

5) Canadian owned foreign cars on home roads - no idea

That would probably represent, for example, CN, AC, BCE, PGE and other
"foreign" cars on, say, CPR. In other words, cars from Canadian roads
other than the home road in question.

Interesting stats!

Walt Lankenau

In a message dated 9/17/05 9:52:14 PM, richtownsend@... writes:

Try this site: <http://nn.railfan.net/Ingoldsby/gold3.htm>

Roger Parry <uncleroger@...> wrote:

I am not familiar with this type of car, what was it and what did it
look like???
On Sep 17, 2005, at 9:19 PM, richtownsend@... wrote:

I am interested.  My primary modeling interest is the Colorado &
Southern standard gauge, and they had these cars.

the cars I will be producing are the wood type built by AC&F.

eric/RGM


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

I've posted the clinic list for Naperville in the
'files' section of the STMFPH group. Thanks to Tom
Olson for sending this to me.

Regards,

Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Guys, many thanks for the prompt and authoritative assistance.
Pacific Limited sounds a great loss.
Regards
Jonathan Marcus
Apologies about not puting my full name.

Greg Martin wrote:

I am not sure what purpose it would serve to compare them together not knowing which is correct, do you? Why compare one that might be wrong to another that my be right? Shouldn't we first establish which one best represents the prototype per the original drawing or doesn't that matter????

Surely any sensible review would compare to the prototype, whether of one or two models.

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

Dean,

I wrote...

I too would like to see a comparison, but not to each other,

rather both to an accurate set of plans. This is the only true
comparison.

Greg Martin

Then you wrote...

"Greg, I think you missed Bruce's point. What is desired is a
comparison of the two to see which better matches an "accurate set of
plans." A review of either vs. the plans would be nice, but it would
be nice to have a side-by-side comparo to know which is a closer
match to the prototype (vs. the competing product.) Since the
Broadway is available in an earlier paint scheme not available from
Walthers, that makes it a better choice for me, unless a review shows
some other problem.

We have the same need for a side-by-side comparison of the Funaro B&O
wagontop vs. the Model RR Warehouse. The Model RR Warehouse version
has been narrowed to correct the width, but we don't know whether it
builds into a better kit than the Funaro or vice versa. I'll bet one
is better in some places than the other and vice versa, neither being
perfect. Until someone knowlegable has both in hand, along with the
prototype plans, we may not know which to buy.
Dean Payne"

I am not sure what purpose it would serve to compare them together not knowing which is correct, do you? Why compare one that might be wrong to another that my be right? Shouldn't we first establish which one best represents the prototype per the original drawing or doesn't that matter????

In your words...

"We have the same need for a side-by-side comparison of the Funaro B&O
wagontop vs. the Model RR Warehouse. The Model RR Warehouse version
has been narrowed to correct the width, but we don't know whether it
builds into a better kit than the Funaro or vice versa."

I could personally care less if a B&O car is fatter to another unless we can clearly establish which on is correct... I just want the correct one or to know which one requires less work to make it so and I believe(correct me if I am wrong)the only way to that is from a correct set of plans... Otherwise what's the purpose of the comprison... The other mehtod is simple conjecture of "I sure like this one better..." Let's first establish which one it correct.

Greg Martin

Arthur Marr wrote:

The Pacific Limited G-50-12s' do have the rivets so are correct for that
class. They also have the Dalman trucks. is also Pat is noted for doing
very good research and producing prototype models, witness his many
versions of the 1932 ARA or his multiple versions of the NYC USRA rebuilds.

I have one of the PL cars, but it is packed in an inaccessible way right now, so I couldn't check it directly. Obviously with the Dalmans the car should be in the second half of the -12 number series. (There is much more info on these cars in Volume 1 of the "SP Freight Cars" books.) I agree that Pat's research is usually impeccable and his O scale models uniformly impressive.

Too bad he is another victim of the times and we have probably seen the
last of his black boxes.

From what I've heard, " the times" have little to do with it. But that's not a topic for this list.

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