Date   

Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Eric Hansmann
 

Lots of cars with truss rods also had steel center sills. The Southern had 20,000+ boxcars in the early 1920s with steel center sills and truss rods. Cars with wood draft sills were banned from interchange in 1928. Wood sills fell out of favor in the Teens but took awhile for those cars to be updated or retired. Cars with truss rods and steel center sills were not banned.

 

It wasn’t until a point in the future (1970) when a time limit regulation on underframes came into use. Freight cars with underframes over 50 years old needed to be removed from service. It’s that regulation, and a few others made shortly afterwards, that push whatever remaining 1920s built wood-sheathed cars out of service.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Charles Peck
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 2:10 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

Granted, truss rod cars survived in their own era.  Times change. 

Mix even a good truss rod car into a string of 100 ton hoppers,

let the slack run out, and you have a lot of toothpicks. 

What worked yesterday does not always stand up to current usage.

Chuck Peck

 

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:13 PM steve_wintner via groups.io <steve_wintner=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

I guess I'd take a bit of the other view. Truss rods worked just fine for decades, so I don't see a well maintained truss rod car as putting workers at risk, especially in limited service as Larry pointed out. Same thing for solid bearings (if well maintained).

I think a lot of these changes were about requiring less maintenance and choosing better practices going forward - which is not to say the old way was unsafe. 

(I grant, I'm not so sure MOW cars always had their solid bearings looked after properly)

Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

I work on aircraft as an engineer, that certainly is how we approach things. Even flight test aircraft have to meet a high standard of safety. I assume the railroads did too.


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Brent;

 

I used to hang out at several interchange yards around Pittsburgh while growing up, and if there was no car inspector assigned to the location, the crews had to.  They might do a cursory job of it, but someone had to.  Generally, a junior member of the crew walked the length of the cut looking over each car, and sometimes looking underneath.  Sometimes they looked inside.

 

One location I hung out at got lots of particularly horrible cars, mostly gons, which they had to set out if it made it through the interchange.  There was a siding on which many unacceptable or bad order cars, got parked until someone figured out what they needed to do with them.

 

The cars I mostly saw were empties, but loaded cars were a problem both because loads are sometimes perishable, and if a car required heavy repair, it needed to be unloaded.

 

Cars that were obvious rejects just got back on an interchange track for the originating road to figure out.

 

Elden Gatwood

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brent Greer
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:58 PM
To: Tony Thompson <tony@...>; main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

How would that process work when a road like Seaboard would reject an incoming car?  Would the road crew at the point of interchange be expected to inspect each car that had been dropped off for pickup and look for any non-compliant/unacceptable equipment before adding them to their train? What would happen to a rejected car and its contents?

 

Brent


Dr. J. Brent Greer


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Tony Thompson <tony@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:41 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

 

steve wintner wrote:



Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

 

     The word "known" in the second sentence is open to debate. Santa Fe had a couple of destructive high-speed derailments that they blamed on the Allied truck. Seaboard also had problems and would not accept cars in interchange if they had that truck. SP had the trucks on some express cars and had no problems, but withdrew them because of the risk they might go somewhere and not be accepted (I have seen the memos). This was in the early 1950s, long before the interchange ban.

 

Tony Thompson

 

 

 


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Murray Stone
 

Dear Mr Chaparro.

 

Would you please advise how one actually gets to see the photo – All I get is details of the entry but not the actual photo itself.

 

Your advise will be deeply appreciated.

 

Murray Stone

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Bob Chaparro via groups.io
Sent: 6 November 2020 4:14 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

 

Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

A photo from the National Archives of Canada:

https://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/CollectionSearch/Pages/record.aspx?app=FonAndCol&IdNumber=3224686

This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

Jim King
 

Yes, my SOU gon is HO but I am considering upscaling to S, assuming there is sufficient market demand.  No gons like it in S but, unfortunately, Southern was the only road to have the rib style and pattern.  2 batches were built for SOU by Pullman (1953 and 1957) and they lasted into the mid 90s in MOW service.

 

Jim King

http://smokymountainmodelworks.com/

 


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

gtws00
 

Another great looking build Fenton
Thanks for sharing your work
George Toman


Re: Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 101969

ROGER HINMAN
 

Nice find. This lis NYC Lot 229-B and built by MDT

Roger Hinman

On Nov 5, 2020, at 12:13 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:

Photo: NYC&HR Boxcar 101969
A photo from the National Archives of Canada:
This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.
Car built in 1909.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

steve_wintner
 

Fair point Tony. We are likely straying off topic, so I'll be brief - there are shades of grey. Known was perhaps not fair for that particular case, "suspect" perhaps. We aero guts usually view it as "not known" to be sound, and wouldn't accept the risk. Granted, times change too. In earlier days the view on "acceptable" risk wax different, and it always is about judgement. Nothing is absolute (not even sitting on your couch at home)


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Brent Greer
 

How would that process work when a road like Seaboard would reject an incoming car?  Would the road crew at the point of interchange be expected to inspect each car that had been dropped off for pickup and look for any non-compliant/unacceptable equipment before adding them to their train? What would happen to a rejected car and its contents?

Brent

Dr. J. Brent Greer


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Tony Thompson <tony@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 5, 2020 3:41 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?
 
steve wintner wrote:

Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

     The word "known" in the second sentence is open to debate. Santa Fe had a couple of destructive high-speed derailments that they blamed on the Allied truck. Seaboard also had problems and would not accept cars in interchange if they had that truck. SP had the trucks on some express cars and had no problems, but withdrew them because of the risk they might go somewhere and not be accepted (I have seen the memos). This was in the early 1950s, long before the interchange ban.

Tony Thompson




Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

bigfourroad
 

You are turning Covid into a reason to celebrate for the rest of us seeing your work!  Very nice work Fenton - looks good enough to be S scale and I assume it is HO. 
Another inspiration to stop procrastinating on S kits. 
Chris


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

I suspect that this train, like many items of the period, was intended to make the public feel like their government was doing something to protect them. It’s actual effectiveness would have been nearly nil. Mostly a “feel-good” gesture.

At the time there was an unfounded optimism that ANY anti-aircraft fire was amazingly effective. The navy was sure it’s ships were heavily protected by just a few anti-aircraft guns. NOT so, as Pearl Harbor and the British Repulse/Prince of Wales incident so sadly proved. Firepower then was minimal and accuracy nil.  Even later in WWII, with their anti-aircraft complements increased close to ten-fold, and with FAR better fire-control, ships were still quite velnerable to air attack, as the Japanese, German, and US Navys all discovered.

Dan MItchell
==========


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Tony Thompson
 

steve wintner wrote:

Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

     The word "known" in the second sentence is open to debate. Santa Fe had a couple of destructive high-speed derailments that they blamed on the Allied truck. Seaboard also had problems and would not accept cars in interchange if they had that truck. SP had the trucks on some express cars and had no problems, but withdrew them because of the risk they might go somewhere and not be accepted (I have seen the memos). This was in the early 1950s, long before the interchange ban.

Tony Thompson




Re: Photo: Monon Covered Hopper 4240

Bill Keene
 

I am modeling 1952-53 so would be looking for info on what might have been the scheme in that period. A very faded car gray car might be an interesting addition to the fleet. 

I will also second the question regarding the load and service of these cars. 

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA


On Nov 5, 2020, at 6:37 AM, Mont Switzer <MSwitzer@...> wrote:

Bill,

 

Adding to Mike's response, I started watching Monon rolling stock closely from 1963 on and never saw a gray one.
  Few photos exist.

 

Sunshine offered a mini-kit for this car and Bowser offered the full on paint and lettering on a r-t-r model.

 

Mont Switzer

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] on behalf of Michael Aufderheide [MononInMonon@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2020 7:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Monon Covered Hopper 4240

Bill,

4-5 years at the most, I have a "Bob's" photo from 1952 and the paint is barely legible.  They were repainted in the scheme used by the Kato models.

Mike


Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Tony Thompson
 

      Now, Clark, fess up. That single-sheathed car is no pig <g>.

Tony Thompson




Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Daniel A. Mitchell
 

Agree that they are 40mm Bofors automatic canons … effective light anti-aircrft guns. As for  “armor”, I hardly see any. Some kind of covers have been placed over the trucks, but they just look like thin steel. The gondola just appears to be a regular gondola, complete with dents in the side panels … hardly armored, just mild steel. This would offer only the lightest protection from small arms fire and shrapnel. One needs at least 5/8” of armor plate to offer any real protection from even a heavy machine gun, let alone any kind of artillery or canon fire. The 30cal or 50cal machine gun fire, or 20mm canon fire from an attack aircraft would really tear this thing up.

Dan MItchell
==========

On Nov 5, 2020, at 12:14 PM, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:

Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)
A photo from the National Archives of Canada:
This photo can be enlarged quite a bit.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA


Re: Smokey Mountain Southern 1953 54'-5" gondola

Bill Keene
 

WOW! Fantastic!! 

You are going to have to tell us how you achieved the grunge and weathering. I have a couple of gondolas that are in need of aging. 

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On Nov 5, 2020, at 7:09 AM, O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...> wrote:

I just finished another Covid build.  This is a Smokey Mountain Southern, 1953 blt date, 53'-6" gondola.  Jim at Smokey Mt has sold this line of models and it appears the new owner is going to release this car in the near future.
This is a nicely done one piece casting with well done resin and etched metal details.  I haven't figured what load to put in it as of now.
Fenton <IMG_1627.jpg><IMG_1628.jpg>


Re: Photo: Armored CN Gondola With Anti-Aircraft Guns (1942)

Mac shp
 


1/87 bofors
https://www.wespemodels.com/bofors_aa_40mm_wes_87073?search=bofors%20
Search the Wespe site and you may find it as a kit (tiny resin parts beware) and built up


Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Rob & Bev Manley
 

Clark,
Beautiful work as always. I'm so bummed that there wasn't the Lisle RPM. I can always use more detail parts. Especially Yarmouth stirrups. Oh well, keep building.

Rob Manley
"Better modeling through personal embarrassment"


On Thursday, November 5, 2020, 01:52:56 PM CST, Allan Smith <smithal9@...> wrote:


Love your kitbash of the Milw 713526 car. I model the Sierra in 1955 and have conductors lists from 1952 that show Milw 713916 on the Sierra. I also have an Accurail kit to make into a Milw car. Your kitbash inspired me to dig it out and review a new parts list and start on the project. Thank you for your posting.

Al Smith
Sonora CA

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, 09:14:16 AM PST, Todd Sullivan via groups.io <sullivant41@...> wrote:


Hey Clark,  they look pretty nifty!  The lipstick really transformed the pig.

Todd Sullivan


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Charles Peck
 

Granted, truss rod cars survived in their own era.  Times change. 
Mix even a good truss rod car into a string of 100 ton hoppers,
let the slack run out, and you have a lot of toothpicks. 
What worked yesterday does not always stand up to current usage.
Chuck Peck

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020 at 2:13 PM steve_wintner via groups.io <steve_wintner=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I guess I'd take a bit of the other view. Truss rods worked just fine for decades, so I don't see a well maintained truss rod car as putting workers at risk, especially in limited service as Larry pointed out. Same thing for solid bearings (if well maintained).

I think a lot of these changes were about requiring less maintenance and choosing better practices going forward - which is not to say the old way was unsafe. 

(I grant, I'm not so sure MOW cars always had their solid bearings looked after properly)

Now an AFC truck, that is another matter. A truck that is known to derail certainly is putting the crew and any public near the right of way at risk. Unacceptable. Even if s you know for certain that the flaw is at speed, and set a much lower speed limit, I'd have issues.

I work on aircraft as an engineer, that certainly is how we approach things. Even flight test aircraft have to meet a high standard of safety. I assume the railroads did too.


Re: Banned from Interchange - was Re: Real or no?

Kenneth Montero
 

Mel,

Not necessarily so. Equipment could be banned from interchange because (1)  its use away from home roads could be such that its use could exceed what the equipment could be expected to handle (truss rod cars without center sills) or (2) such equipment needed more monitoring than could be expected in interchange (arch bar trucks). Home road usage, especially in MOW service, could deal with such concerns, or at least that was the perception.

Jim's point about risk of injury and its cost to the railroad is a lot different now than it was in the past, mostly because the risk and cost  of injury and death were perceived many years ago by railroad management as less than the resulting savings.

Steve's point about standards of safety is well-taken, but not always observed. Not many years ago in Richmond, Virginia, a railroad employee died while moving an interchanged freight car (not a home road car) because he was unable to operate the brakes with the brake wheel and the boxcar crashed into a flood wall gate being closed for its test. It was discovered that a brake rod had dropped from the brake linkage. However, the employee's railroad had accepted it in interchange (supposedly after checking it for compliance with rules for interchange acceptability). I don't recall which railroad had to assume responsibility, but there was a lot of finger-pointing.

Ken Montero

On 11/05/2020 1:31 PM mel perry <clipper841@...> wrote:


the true nature of railroad ownership,
in other words basic capitalism
;-(
mel perry

On Thu, Nov 5, 2020, 10:28 AM Jim Betz < jimbetz@...> wrote:
Hi,
  We often hear of equipment that was "banned from interchange".  I get that and it
doesn't surprise me.  So here's the thing ... if something like the Allied trucks are
banned from interchange it is probably the result of a failure (probably repeated)
that caused an accident/derailment/something important.  And I get it that the RR
doesn't want to get rid of "serviceable equipment".  So why was (is?) it acceptable
to put your RR employees at risk by using them in stuff like MOW service?
  Yes, you get some extra miles "for very little cost" ... but wouldn't a single 
employee injury make that savings not worth it?  Why wouldn't just one lawsuit
for "negligence" void all of those savings?
  The same would be true of truss rods, brake equipment, lighting changes, ladders
and ladder placements, etc. etc. etc.  It doesn't seem to make "solid" economic
sense in the long run.  Why wouldn't the unions have objected? 
  What am I missing? 
                                                                                                           - Jim 




Re: Accurail Milw 16xxx

Allan Smith
 

Love your kitbash of the Milw 713526 car. I model the Sierra in 1955 and have conductors lists from 1952 that show Milw 713916 on the Sierra. I also have an Accurail kit to make into a Milw car. Your kitbash inspired me to dig it out and review a new parts list and start on the project. Thank you for your posting.

Al Smith
Sonora CA

On Thursday, November 5, 2020, 09:14:16 AM PST, Todd Sullivan via groups.io <sullivant41@...> wrote:


Hey Clark,  they look pretty nifty!  The lipstick really transformed the pig.

Todd Sullivan

15901 - 15920 of 194676