Art-
While probably true, I think it is too early to draw any conclusions.
Everything today is discontinued upon release. I for one don't want to go
back to the days when you could always buy a new production run of
Athearn's CB&Q boxcar in roadnumber 13983 (or whatever the one roadnumber
was!!) Existing Modelers don't buy duplicates and new people can buy the
current offerings or buy them used on eBay.
Athearn is making adjustments and upgrades to the MDC line and I doubt that
much of the old tooling will go away. I am surprised how quickly Athearn
has brought Athearnized MDC/Roundhouse items to market. In fact, I would
speculate that some of the older tooling that never got converted to plastic
under MDC may see the light of day, either as refurbished tooling or as
inspiration for new products.
Because of the overall size of the distribution pipeline being reduced due
to distributor exclusive lines some readjustment in the wholesale and retail
outlets may evolve, but that is something that was necessary anyway and is
going on in the rest of the consumer segment as well. We need healthy
manufacturers, wholesalers, and retailers to support the hobby and this is
all moving in that direction.
Charlie Vlk
Railroad Model Resources

Hi, Ted,
Prototype Rails is scheduled for Jan 6-8, 2006. Location is the Hilton Hotel, Cocoa Beach, FL. Phone: 321-799-0003. Point of contact: Mike Brock, 2260 Coconut Lane, Merritt Island, FL 32952, brockm@....

Now...all that is for publication. However, we have the Thursday [ Jan 5 ] afternoon op sessions and evening dinner and party afterward at my house. You are, of course, invited to those. The dinner was originally a kickoff dinner for those helping run the event plus clinicians. Now it is all of the above plus anyone else arriving in time.

While I'm at it, I usually begin getting serious about clinicians in August, so I might as well ask you now if you want to do a presentation. Same deal as last yr, we pass ALL the profits back to long distant clinicians...those from outside Florida...to help defray costs. Things are looking good, the hotel will be completely rennovated by Jan and we'll have more space. Richard Hendrickson and Bob Hundman will be here this next yr and John Golden has just volunteered to present for the first time. I'm hoping I can entice BLI/PCM to attend...they are located only about 70 miles north of here.

Mike Brock

You will, of course, be providing information on how we can purchase this calendar, (with our STMFC discount)

George Hollwedel

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...> wrote:
I will be publishing a calendar for 2006 comprised of some exceptional
photos of Steam Era scenes that include freight cars. I would like to
include all known prototype meets on the calendar and include a back
page with contact info for these events. If you sponsor/moderate such
an event and would like it included on the calendar can you please
forward all pertinent information (dates, contact info [email, web and
snail mail], city, state of event, etc.) to me at tculotta at
speedwitch dot com. The events do NOT need to be related to the Steam
Era, even though the calendar is. Prototype modeling is prototype
modeling, even though I don't know what ACI and lube plates are. Jim
Six, Bob Harpe, Mike Brock, Dave Owens and Rob Sarberenyi in
particular, please let me know your plans for 2006.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

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



George Hollwedel
Prototype N Scale Models
georgeloop@...
310 Loma Verde Street
Buda, TX 78610-9785
512-796-6883

---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page

Tim, sorry about that link - a bit frustrating. Here is a better approach: http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/ctyclerk/archives/notdream/ws_scan.htm and use the search term: 1184-2905. If you type Phillips, that should also work. Takes you to a thumbnail, which you click beneath to get a larger image.

Doodling around both of the web (CIty of Vanouver and Vancouver Public Library) sites using the word "flat" should pick up lots of lumber loads - many high and wide. At the Vancouver Public Library site, look for Ford for an interesting shot. A lot of the timber used at the Ford Edgewater pant was shipped from the B.C. west coast in 1929.

Rob Kirkham

blindog@... wrote:

Now that I'm home from a biz trip, still pondering "chemical tanks," I've had a chance to look at Richard's articles in RMJ about the Atlas (7/03) and Trix (9/04) ICC-105 pressure tanks. To recap, the Atlas represents a post-war ACF-built 11,000 gallon ICC-105W that was designed to haul 50 tons of LPG/propane or anhydrous ammonia, while the Trix is a pre-war 6,000 gallon ICC-105 designed to haul 40 tons of chlorine. Which brings up a good question: Why were the chlorine tanks only 40 ton cars? Even then, the 6,000 gallon size doesn't appear to have used up that 40 tons of capacity. Was there a federal limit on the size of chlorine tanks in that era, just as there is today? (Most DOT-105s are still held to 263,000 pounds gross rail limit, and because of the heavy construction of chlorine tanks, this limits them to about 90 tons of product.) There was even one 35-ton CAPY chlorine tank in Richard's article on the chlorine cars.

Scott,

The only difference between a 40 ton car and a 50 ton car in the STMFC's era was the size of trucks - a 40 ton truck had 5" x 9" axle journals, and a 50 to truck had 5 1/2" x 10" axle journals. The cubic capacity expressed in either feet or gallons provided a better description of the size of a freight car than tons which was merely a rating of truck size.

Your analysis would be helpful for a tank car owner to decide the size of truck which a particular tank car should have.

On the last page of any ORER up until 1962, there was a chart giving the specifications for the six authorized truck sizes. Each of the six sized trucks had different GRL's (modern parlance) from which the Light Weight of the Car was subtracted in order to determine the Load Limit. The stenciled Capacity had to be equal or less than the Load Limit. Up until 1962, the GRL's and Standard Nominal Capacities were:

Journal Size GRL (lb) Std. CAPY (lb)
3 3/4"x7" 66,000 40,000
4 1/4"x8" 103,000 60,000
5"x9" 136,000 80,000
5 1/2"x10" 169,000 100,000
6"x11" 210,000 140,000
6 1/2"x12" 251,000 200,000

There were both "40 ton" and "50 ton" 1923 Steel Design ("X29-style") Boxcars whose only material difference was the size of the trucks - likewise for "40 ton " and "50 ton" 1937 Design Boxcars. Indeed, the B&M had their own design of 36' SUF Boxcars split into two series: - one, the #64680-65687 series had "40 ton" trucks while the second series, #65688-66787, had "30 ton" trucks.

A 40 ton "chlorine car" could become a 50 ton tank car if the car lessor wanted to reserve the car for a less dense commodity than chlorine by merely switching trucks. To answer your question about the size of trucks for a 40 ton chlorine car being too much for a 6,000 gallon tank, one answer might be is that the calculated load limit using a 30 ton truck would have required a GRL greater than 103,000 pounds. Given your calculations of a load limit of 62,400 pounds for a 6,000 gallon car, could the light weight of that car be kept under 40,600 pounds (103,000 less 62,400)?

Meanwhile, there was some meaning for the distinction between 50 (or 55) ton and 70 ton hoppers, but only because of the differences in the cubic capacity available for a carload of coal. A 50 (or 55 - there was no such thing as a 55 ton truck until after 1962) ton truck could carry about 2,000 cubic feet of coal. These were the "twins." A 70 ton hopper could carry about 2,750 cubic feet of coal - suitable for the "trips" and "quads." In the case of hoppers, the 50 ton and 70 ton adjectives are really another way to express the cubic capacity, or number of door openings.

Hope this helps, Tim Gilbert

A great idea Ted!

I will be publishing a calendar for 2006 comprised of some exceptional photos of Steam Era scenes that include freight cars. I would like to include all known prototype meets on the calendar and include a back page with contact info for these events. If you sponsor/moderate such an event and would like it included on the calendar can you please forward all pertinent information (dates, contact info [email, web and snail mail], city, state of event, etc.) to me at tculotta at speedwitch dot com. The events do NOT need to be related to the Steam Era, even though the calendar is. Prototype modeling is prototype modeling, even though I don't know what ACI and lube plates are. Jim Six, Bob Harpe, Mike Brock, Dave Owens and Rob Sarberenyi in particular, please let me know your plans for 2006.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

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

I have a couple of prototype references that are kind of interesting on spools/reels. The first is at the City of Vancouver web page, and shows CP309927 (depressed centre flat car) with a large steel real cable load of submarine telephone line, c.194_?. It can be reached at this link: <http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll>

I couldn't access that link, but I found this "high & wide" load poking
around the database.

http://www3.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/spePhotos/LeonardFrankCollection/02DisplayJPGs/20/3656.jpg

Tim O.

In the WB Video Allegheny Rails, Vol II, The Western
Maryland Railway, there is a scene near Meyersdale, Pa
of the EB Connellsville-Cumberland local that has
three Canadian Pacific (IIRC) open top hoppers in the
consist. There is no mention of whether they are loads
or empties or their destination. Although rare it is
still a mystery why they were there.

Denny Wertz, WMRHS

--- John Riddell <jriddell@...> wrote:

Max Carey wrote -

Thanks for the information. For the reasons you
gave, a Canadian
open hopper in the USA must have been a rarity. I
can't imagine what
kinds of freight would have moved from Canada to the
USA in open
hoppers.


Max,

Iron ore is one example. Unit trains of open hoppers
carried iron ore from northern Ontario to steel
mills near Pittsburgh.
These unit trains consisted of hundreds of CN,
Ontario Northland and Canada Southern open triple
hoppers. But this was after the period of this
group, from 1965 to 1971 .

Another example - in the west during the steam era,
CP open top coal gons carried coal accross the
border from the many large coal mines in the Crows
Nest Pass of the Rockies.

In 1950, CN imported from the US 1.5 million tons of
bituminous coal while CP imported 1.6 million tons.
This was imported from PA and Ohio into southern
Ontario and Manitoba. The further west and east
regions of Canada were both self-suffient with coal
reserves.

Hope this helps.
John Riddell




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

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

I happily use their foam cooler for train watching expeditions. They are
sold everywhere you want to be . . .

Tom Jones III

The 1-87 Vehicle web page is a great resource for model pictures and
assessments of vehicle models with links to all manufacturers such
as Don Mills and Sylvan who make some beautiful compliments to our
period.

Bill McCoy
Jax

http://www.1-87vehicles.org/


--- In STMFC@..., "lnbill" <bwelch@u...> wrote:

Hi Mont:

You are of course right, which I why I knew I would not land in

the

moderators jail house, and you were one of the people I was

thinking

about when I made the post.

BTW, for anyone looking for vintage photos of trucks, check out

www.hankstruckpictures.com

Bill Welch



--- In STMFC@..., "Montford Switzer" <ZOE@I...> wrote:

Bill and all,

Trucks and trailers make good loads, are great "scenery" items

for

freight houses, team tracks and drayage operations all of which

support

steam era freight car operations. I think you will stay clear of
moderator jail on this one.

Now if I put out a message like that it would be immediately be

suspect

since I like old trucks as well and the rail operations that they
supported.

Mont Switzer

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On

Behalf Of

lnbill
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 11:29 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] trucks & trailers

Although strickly speaking, making a posting about trucks is

outside

the subject matter of this list, but knowing the interests of

many

on

this list, I thought I would offer the following source for a

small

range of trucks and trailers that is not widely known or

available.

The

email address below is for Don Mills, who is in New England. Ask

him to

send you and email of his offerings, which are in our era. I

have

several examples of his resin offerings and can testify that

thye

are

very nice, and represent prototypes not available anywhere else.

The

kits can be ordered from Don.

Donmillsmodels@a...

Bill Welch





Yahoo! Groups Links

On Jul 19, 2005, at 2:27 AM, blindog@... wrote:

Now that I'm home from a biz trip, still pondering "chemical tanks," I've had a chance to look at Richard's articles in RMJ about the Atlas (7/03) and Trix (9/04) ICC-105 pressure tanks. To recap, the Atlas represents a post-war ACF-built 11,000 gallon ICC-105W that was designed to haul 50 tons of LPG/propane or anhydrous ammonia, while the Trix is a pre-war 6,000 gallon ICC-105 designed to haul 40 tons of chlorine. Which brings up a good question: Why were the chlorine tanks only 40 ton cars? Even then, the 6,000 gallon size doesn't appear to have used up that 40 tons of capacity. Was there a federal limit on the size of chlorine tanks in that era, just as there is today? (Most DOT-105s are still held to 263,000 pounds gross rail limit, and because of the heavy construction of chlorine tanks, this limits them to about 90 tons of product.) There was even one 35-ton CAPY chlorine tank in Richard's article on the chlorine cars.

Okay, the math looks like this: the ACF-built chlorine tanks that Trix modeled weighed about 65,000 pounds empty. With 50-ton trucks (GRL of 169,000 pounds in the steam era), which those pictured in Richard's article all appear to have judging from the size of the journal boxes, that leaves 104,000 pounds for product. Now at a weight of about 10.4 pounds per gallon (based on what modern chroline cars can carry, since they are 90-ton, 17,350g cars), 6,000 gallons of liquid chlorine is only 62,400 pounds, well under the stenciled capacity of 80,000 pounds. Since we can rule out liquid chlorine being denser back then (you see, there are some things that never change), something is amiss. Making the tank larger would increase the tare weight, but there's obviously room to work with. Upping the gallonage to 8,000 gallons would have resulted in a car that weighed around 80,000 pounds empty, leaving 89,000 pounds for product, which is still leaves a few thousand pounds to spare.

An aside. Richard's 7/03 article on the Atlas car includes a photo of a chlorine tank, SHPX 3337 built in 11/50 and leased to Hooker, but that is a somewhat smaller car than the Atlas model's prototype. I can't read the gallonage on the car end, but scaling the photo the car appears to be about a 9,200 gallon tank. Given what appears to be a CAPY of 100,000 pounds, that makes more sense.

I should note that later some of the 11,000 gallon pressure tanks were either built or rebuilt for chlorine and/or sulphur dixide service. Those tanks got 70-ton trucks, among other differences from the Atlas model. In this form they served up into the late 1990s. Many others were rebuilt into non-pressure DOT111 tanks in the '70s, and were some of the first slurry tanks. Even a few of the 6,000 gallon tanks survived into the '90s, hauling tetraethyl lead, a.k.a. motor fuel anti-knock compound, the "lead" in leaded gasoline. Those puppies were so contaminated by the lead that they couldn't be scrapped. Instead they were filled with concrete and buried.

But back to the steam era. Does anyone have a good reason for these pre-war chlorine tanks being what appears to be much smaller than justifed by their trucks and stenciled weight limits? Is it another case of the consignees all had small storage tanks and a tankcar larger than 6,000 gallons would have been a waste?

I am not a chemist or engineer, so I pose this out of ignorance. Is it possible that the tank was a standard design and the dome fittings could be changed resulting in a car for different service that could use the capacity?

Regards,
Ted Culotta

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

Now that I'm home from a biz trip, still pondering "chemical tanks," I've had a chance to look at Richard's articles in RMJ about the Atlas (7/03) and Trix (9/04) ICC-105 pressure tanks. To recap, the Atlas represents a post-war ACF-built 11,000 gallon ICC-105W that was designed to haul 50 tons of LPG/propane or anhydrous ammonia, while the Trix is a pre-war 6,000 gallon ICC-105 designed to haul 40 tons of chlorine. Which brings up a good question: Why were the chlorine tanks only 40 ton cars? Even then, the 6,000 gallon size doesn't appear to have used up that 40 tons of capacity. Was there a federal limit on the size of chlorine tanks in that era, just as there is today? (Most DOT-105s are still held to 263,000 pounds gross rail limit, and because of the heavy construction of chlorine tanks, this limits them to about 90 tons of product.) There was even one 35-ton CAPY chlorine tank in Richard's article on the chlorine cars.

Okay, the math looks like this: the ACF-built chlorine tanks that Trix modeled weighed about 65,000 pounds empty. With 50-ton trucks (GRL of 169,000 pounds in the steam era), which those pictured in Richard's article all appear to have judging from the size of the journal boxes, that leaves 104,000 pounds for product. Now at a weight of about 10.4 pounds per gallon (based on what modern chroline cars can carry, since they are 90-ton, 17,350g cars), 6,000 gallons of liquid chlorine is only 62,400 pounds, well under the stenciled capacity of 80,000 pounds. Since we can rule out liquid chlorine being denser back then (you see, there are some things that never change), something is amiss. Making the tank larger would increase the tare weight, but there's obviously room to work with. Upping the gallonage to 8,000 gallons would have resulted in a car that weighed around 80,000 pounds empty, leaving 89,000 pounds for product, which is still leaves a few thousand pounds to spare.

An aside. Richard's 7/03 article on the Atlas car includes a photo of a chlorine tank, SHPX 3337 built in 11/50 and leased to Hooker, but that is a somewhat smaller car than the Atlas model's prototype. I can't read the gallonage on the car end, but scaling the photo the car appears to be about a 9,200 gallon tank. Given what appears to be a CAPY of 100,000 pounds, that makes more sense.

I should note that later some of the 11,000 gallon pressure tanks were either built or rebuilt for chlorine and/or sulphur dixide service. Those tanks got 70-ton trucks, among other differences from the Atlas model. In this form they served up into the late 1990s. Many others were rebuilt into non-pressure DOT111 tanks in the '70s, and were some of the first slurry tanks. Even a few of the 6,000 gallon tanks survived into the '90s, hauling tetraethyl lead, a.k.a. motor fuel anti-knock compound, the "lead" in leaded gasoline. Those puppies were so contaminated by the lead that they couldn't be scrapped. Instead they were filled with concrete and buried.

But back to the steam era. Does anyone have a good reason for these pre-war chlorine tanks being what appears to be much smaller than justifed by their trucks and stenciled weight limits? Is it another case of the consignees all had small storage tanks and a tankcar larger than 6,000 gallons would have been a waste?

curiousity is killing the Dog
Scott C

I have a couple of prototype references that are kind of interesting on spools/reels. The first is at the City of Vancouver web page, and shows CP309927 (depressed centre flat car) with a large steel real cable load of submarine telephone line, c.194_?. It can be reached at this link: <http://www.city.vancouver.bc.ca/dbtw-wpd/exec/dbtwpub.dll>

The next is a photo of a tracter trailer unit hauling a wood reel, July 5, 1943, near Vancouver BC. It can be found by going to this link http://www3.vpl.vancouver.bc.ca/spe/histphotos/photos-search.htm and searching with the keyword 33422.

Your guess is as goodas mine for the dimensions on these loads. An interesting web page selling models of spools is SCM - at http://www.surreycustommodels.com/finished.html (no connection to the seller, etc....)

Rob Kirkham

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

Life-Like, under the LIFOAM brand, has become the world’s largest
manufacturer of foam picnic coolers and related items . . .

Urk. I guess we should be grateful the LL cars are not molded
in styrofoam . . .

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

Another data point - so far, out of 414 foreign road hoppers at Alburgh
between 1947-1951, not a single one was CN or CP.

Ben Hom

But what about Island Pond, Brownsville, Portland, or White River Jct?
What about Eastport Idaho?

No one has pointed out what is certainly the most significant fact
about the Life-Like/Walthers deal, which is that Life-Like's model
railroad business was both irrelevant to, and dwarfed by, their main
business, well described on the L-L website as follows:

Life-Like, under the LIFOAM brand, has become the world’s largest
manufacturer of foam picnic coolers and related items. Under the
Pro-Pak brand, Life-Like has built a significant business in the “cold
chain” distribution of insulated boxes and various refrigerated gel
packs serving major distributors as well as direct sales to providers
of gourmet foods, health care and the seafood industry.

It seems reasonable to suppose that Life-Like's management simply
decided to shed a part of their business which, however successful it
may be, requires more resources than is justified by its relatively
modest profitability, as compared to the picnic cooler and insulated
box business.

Richard Hendrickson

Brothers,

I have a few extra HO freight cars for sale. I'd
prefer to sell them to the same buyer so I don't have
to pay shipping x 2. Something around $27.50 for both,
I pay shipping, sounds fair. If you're interested,
please contact me off-line at Golden1014@....

1 - Intermountain kit #40803-14, 10' 6" box car, ATSF
Grand Canyon, car #141896. Brown body,car cement roof
and ends. New in the box.

2 - Red Caboose kit #7010-40, PRR X-29 car with flat
plate ends, circle keystone, car #503920. New in the
box.

Thanks for the bandwidth, guys.

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

2nd Annual St. Louis Railroad Prototype Modeler's Meet
August 20th, 2005
Collinsville, IL
Contact: John Golden, Golden1014@...

al_brown03 wrote:

It was partly my fault we got down off the Alburgh trestle, :-) so
let's climb back up & see what we know.

To summarize several people's contributions: (see if I get it right)

(1) Rutland received coal at the Alburgh trestle in hoppers of various
railroads, mostly serving the Pennsylvania and West Virginia coal
fields. (2) One of the source railroads was the Montour; to go back to
Jace Kahn's original question, it indeed seems likely that there was
an arrangement with an operator on the Montour. (3) Rutland's own
hoppers were used to trans-ship this coal from Alburgh to other engine
terminals on the Rutland. (Ben and Tim's compilations are fascinating!)

Since the Rutland is kinda small and off in a corner of the country,
does this mean anything for bigger railroads elsewhere? Well, maybe.
The Seaboard Air Line had (1/53) over 1500 coal hoppers, almost all
offset triples. But they never originated much coal on line, and "the
last [on-line] mine ... closed in 1947." (Gehrke, "Freight Traffic
Geography of the SAL", p 234) So, what were all those hoppers used
for? Trans-shipped locomotive coal?

Al,

While I may not have the precise answer you want about why SAL's hoppers, you could perhaps fill in the missing pieces yourself through some research. Questions I would ask are:

1) Who was the owner of hoppers were seen in photographs around SAL's coaling stations? If SAL, coal was transferred from foreign hoppers somewhere else on line, or from barges or colliers ("sea-to-rail")..

2) How old were SAL's hoppers? If they were purchased when coal was being mined on the SAL, then what hoppers were still "active" in the 1950's were residues from the past.

3) Some railroads bought hoppers for multiple roles - to carry coal, ballast, phosphate, or other minerals. Some of those hoppers may have been used in the phosphate business in Florida. If I remember Gherke correctly, I believe that some open top hoppers were used for specific type phosphate loads - indeed, I think there is a photo of hoppers in that service - I don't remember if it was a "coal-style" hopper.

4) Perhaps the Archives of the ACL/SAL HS has relevant material. Same with the Historical Societies in the Bone Valley.

Finally, Jeff English, Ben Hom and myself have had the generosity of Armand Premo who saved the Alburgh data and has chosen to share it with us. Thank You, Armand. Neither Ben nor myself can be considered Rutland fanatics (Jeff can be considered as one); Ben's and my interest in the data is to get some feel for the geographic distribution of hoppers nationally.

Hope this helps, Tim Gilbert

Al Brown wrote:
"Ben and Tim's [Rutland] compilations are fascinating!"

To give credit where it's due, the shifting lists and car logs came from
Armand Premo, and Jeff English has been compiling this data for years. Tim
and I are recent newcomers to analyzing this Rutland data.


Ben Hom