I've listed a variety of items on Ebay that I'm handling from several different collections. New listings will be posted each week
http://stores.ebay.com/Espee-F-5

Thanks for looking!

Rob Sarberenyi
espeef5@...

I have a quantity of the Life-Like Mather single deck stock cars, and
would like to know, generally, when did these cars retire from active
duty in the eastern USA?
My desired window on time is circa 1949, but anytime from 1945 to 1950
is more or less OK. Very small anachronisms are tolerable, but not
big ones.

I believe that both the Walthers reefer and the BLI reefer are available

in the same early REA paint scheme<
As you said somewhat different lettering. Also I believe the Walthers
lettering color is yellow and at least for my era should be gold. The BLI
cars are gold lettering.
Walthers has a problem sometimes of not describing the painting of the
cars!

Probably a minor point but if you are buying a RTR I would expect the
grab irons to be installed. BLI does and Walthers doesn't!

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Andy Miller wrote:
"Aluminum for ships' superstructure was tried (mostly by the British),
but abandoned by the USN because of bi-metallic corrosion problems
between dissimilar metals - especially when exposed to seawater."

NO. Aluminum has been used by the USN in all cruiser, destroyer, and
frigate superstructures since 1960 to reduce topside weight, which
has a negative impact on ship's stability. This practice did not end
until the introduction of the DDG 51 class guided missile destroyers
in 1991, which have steel superstructures.

While cracking and bi-metallic corrosion were issues that had to be
dealt with, the major reason that aluminum superstructure design was
abandoned was due to survivability, as rudely demonstrated by the
collision between USS BELKNAP and USS JOHN F KENNEDY in 1976, the
Exocet attack on HMS SHEFFIELD during the Falklands War in 1982, and
the Exocet attack on USS STARK in 1987. In all three, aluminum
superstructure components either burned or melted under intense heat
caused by aviation fuel (BELKNAP) or unexpended missile fuel
(SHEFFIELD and STARK).

http://www.navsource.org/archives/04/04012605.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/95/Sheffield_onfire.jpg

[Moderator - Recommend we bring this ship thread to an end. It's
irrelevent, and there's a bunch of misinformation being thrown about.]


"Have freight cars made of aluminum ever had these problems?"

Yes. See Thompson/Church/Jones' Pacific Fruit Express on PFE's
experience with their early aluminum reefers.


Ben Hom

Rob Kirkham wrote:

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

My guess is that these are cars marked for some road not listed in the
preface but are owned by a Canadian railroad and are recorded as present on
the rails of one of the reporting lines.

Seems that home vs foreign follows the US definition -- the reporting road's
own cars vs. not their own... Nothing to do with "nationality" and and so
USA vs. Canadian then means which nation, not which road. So I would
intrepret line #2 to include US owned routes located in Canada.

Line #3 is interesting to me because the mid-50's data I have shows about
the same percentage -- 10% of the fleet.

Dave Nelson

Incorrect. The first Liberty ships had a major problem with just this type of issue - they broke because they did not flex (being welded instead of riveted, and being the first mass produced ships to be done in this fashion and being sent to the Russian Convoys didn't help). A number of ships were lost before they worked out the solution. (and at that, the first series were kept in service, knowing they could break, the odds were decent that they wouldn't last long enough to break anyway - such is war).

In terms of steel plates, you are an optimist. Most ship hulls are a maximum of 1" and that includes all warships. Some warships may have an armor (more more than one) belt affixed to the hull that increases the width of the side, but when you talk of 7 1/2" you are getting into the large cruiser category or larger (a very loose rule of thumb is to base it on gun caliber). But the hull itself is not that much thicker (a point that was brought home very dearly at Pearl Harbor when torpedos were exploded under the belt). If you recall too, after Pearl Harbor, the rescue workers had to torch through the hull bottom of the Oklahoma in order to rescue trapped sailors.

In terms of more current production, especially in the more numerous ships of the frigate or similar sized ships, the hull could well be 3/32" or slightly more. And it might not be steel. In the Falklands, you may recall that the superstructure of some of the British ships were made from Aluminium or even a magnesium composite (which as Tony can tell you, neither will be very effective in stopping power, and both, but especially magnesium will be prone to fire damage). In the book by Motorbooks called "warship Boneyards", there is a photo of someone putting there finger through a non-corrosive (but oxidized) hull.

All of which is mean to say, no warship hull, save for wooden ships, is going to be over 7" and most of steel are less than 1".

At 02:48 AM 9/20/2005, you wrote:

Message: 16
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 20:51:02 -0400
From: "Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee@...>
Subject: RE: Re: Detail of AAR 1937 boxcar - Murphy and Hutchins Roofs
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

Bob Webber

Ships are often plated with steel as thin as 1/4" (10.2 lb plate to a
ship builder).

Armor is something very different. It can be as thick as 20" ! The
rule of thumb is that the thickness of the armor equaled the caliber of
the guns. However, armor was never welded, but rather bolted in
place. Welding would reduce its ability to resist penetration.

Aluminum for ships' superstructure was tried (mostly by the British),
but abandoned by the USN because of bi-metallic corrosion problems
between dissimilar metals - especially when exposed to seawater. Have
freight cars made of aluminum ever had these problems?

regards,

Andy Miller

--- 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