|
NPRHA decals for Rapido NP box.
Last year I purchased some decals for the Rapido NP boxcar since I knew I’d have to tweak my models for my era. I must say this were some of the nicest decals I have ever used. I was working with decorated models so I only needed to change reweigh and repack dates but I applied Over 40 little decals to the model since they included chalk marks, reweigh and repack data printed on car body colors and placards. The film is very thin and everything laid down Nicely with micro sol. I have repack and reweigh data and a few spare Monads for a few more NP cars. My only issue was I could not read some of the smallest data on the backing. I’ve had this problem with other decals too. I’ll post pics of the cars when they are weathered. I just wanted to give the NPRHA a public shout out about the decals. Brian J. Carlson
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Hi List Members,
Some additional info, I believe I have found the approximate date when
these cars were ordered from Standard Steel Car Co – see Feb 1925 issue of
Railway and Locomotive Engineering page 61 at the link below. The car count (12
cars) and the tonnage (70 tons) is spot on for these gondolas. And so it does
appear that Carnegie Steel went to an outside builder for these cars!
Enjoy!
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 6:29 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi List Members,
Oh, forgot to mention, the fact that these are the only gondolas listed
under Carnegie Steel in this ORER makes me think they may have been intended to
be interchanged and used for mainline service, not just for in-plant
service.
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 6:19 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi List Members,
I have some more info on the 65 foot gondola CSCO 534... listed under
Carnegie Steel Company, it is part of series 526-537 in the Dec 1930 ORER.
See info at the link below.
In particular, “Note A” references these cars and sez “Cars in series 526
to 537 marked C. S. Co., Homestead Works”. The notes further indicate “Make
separate reports for cars marked ‘C. S. Co., Homestead Works’ to Wm. Donald,
Auditor, Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. June 1930”
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 1:10 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi Eric and List Members,
The car sez HOMESTEAD WORKS on it, this indicates Homestead Steel Works
which was bought up and integrated into Carnegie Steel.
Claus Schlund
From: Eric
Hansmann
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2020 5:01 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Could
it be Cambria Steel? They also built freight cars.
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN On May 2, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Claus Schlund \(HGM\) <claus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Eric Hansmann
Two grabs on the left end of the car were not a requirement until 1932-33. New and newly rebuilt cars received the two grabs. There are freight cars that made it into the 1940s with only one grab on the left end.
The other end may seem odd with only one grab but the deep end sill was considered a step, so a grab between the sill step and the one on the car side may not have been required.
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN
On May 3, 2020 at 5:06 PM "Claus Schlund \(HGM\)" <claus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Tank Car Placard Locations
Blow up the photo and look at the end car of the string to the right. It is UTLX 5722 from the same series of cars. It now has the end safety placard hung from the running board to the right of the couple/center line.
Dave Parker and I had a good discussion of safety placards as I was completing the UTLX book and there is a segment near the end of the book discussing them. (Shameless plug: the book is still available from Speedwitch!) :>)
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 2:12 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tank Car Placard Locations
And on closer examination, UTLX 5274's current placard is pasted onto the tank on not on a placard board, as I had thought.
Regards, Bruce Smith Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Dave Parker via groups.io <spottab@...>
This photo dates to a time (1920) where the requirement for placard holds on tank cars was just being phased in. Prior, just about anything would do, including pasting a paper placard directly onto the tank as seen here.
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Hi Dan and List Members,
Dan wrote: “No ladders on right end and left end grabs are
insufficient”
These gons were built in the late 1920s. What the safety requirements were
at the time regarding right side ladders and end grabs, I cannot say.
The cars are classified as ARA class GM in the ORER, meaning a mill gon
with drop ends. I don’t know how the drop end feature may impact the presence
(or lack thereof) of end grabs
Others out there have any thoughts on this?
Claus Schlund
From: Dan
Smith
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 6:48 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hello
All, I seriously doubt that this gon was used in interchange. One thing that no one has pointed out, this gon does not comply with the safety appliance act. No ladders on right end and left end grabs are insufficient. Any others see the same thing? Dan Smith
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Hello All,
I seriously doubt that this gon was used in interchange. One thing that no one has pointed out, this gon does not comply with the safety appliance act. No ladders on right end and left end grabs are insufficient. Any others see the same thing? Dan Smith
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Hi List Members,
Oh, forgot to mention, the fact that these are the only gondolas listed
under Carnegie Steel in this ORER makes me think they may have been intended to
be interchanged and used for mainline service, not just for in-plant
service.
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 6:19 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi List Members,
I have some more info on the 65 foot gondola CSCO 534... listed under
Carnegie Steel Company, it is part of series 526-537 in the Dec 1930 ORER.
See info at the link below.
In particular, “Note A” references these cars and sez “Cars in series 526
to 537 marked C. S. Co., Homestead Works”. The notes further indicate “Make
separate reports for cars marked ‘C. S. Co., Homestead Works’ to Wm. Donald,
Auditor, Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. June 1930”
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 1:10 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi Eric and List Members,
The car sez HOMESTEAD WORKS on it, this indicates Homestead Steel Works
which was bought up and integrated into Carnegie Steel.
Claus Schlund
From: Eric
Hansmann
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2020 5:01 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Could
it be Cambria Steel? They also built freight cars.
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN On May 2, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Claus Schlund \(HGM\) <claus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest 65 foot mill gons
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
Hi List Members,
I have some more info on the 65 foot gondola CSCO 534... listed under
Carnegie Steel Company, it is part of series 526-537 in the Dec 1930 ORER.
See info at the link below.
In particular, “Note A” references these cars and sez “Cars in series 526
to 537 marked C. S. Co., Homestead Works”. The notes further indicate “Make
separate reports for cars marked ‘C. S. Co., Homestead Works’ to Wm. Donald,
Auditor, Carnegie Building, Pittsburgh, Pa. June 1930”
Claus Schlund
From: Claus Schlund
Sent: Sunday, May 03, 2020 1:10 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Hi Eric and List Members,
The car sez HOMESTEAD WORKS on it, this indicates Homestead Steel Works
which was bought up and integrated into Carnegie Steel.
Claus Schlund
From: Eric
Hansmann
Sent: Saturday, May 02, 2020 5:01 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Carnegie Steel built some of the earliest
65 foot mill gons Could
it be Cambria Steel? They also built freight cars.
Eric Hansmann
Murfreesboro, TN On May 2, 2020, at 1:02 PM, Claus Schlund \(HGM\) <claus@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: NP Reefer 91725
Hudson Leighton <hudsonl@...>
Disregard the caption, I put in the information for 1st 91725, and it should have been 2nd 91725.
-Hudson
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: LV Boxcar 62182 With Weed Chains Load
If it worked, here is an advertisement for Weed Chains. If not, here is a link. Chuck Peck
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: LV Boxcar 62182 With Weed Chains Load
Patrick Wade
If you Google weed chains for grass cutting there will be an image of a hub to fit on a weed whacker like device with two lengths of chain extending from the hub. Similar to a medieval flailing weapon. Pat Wade Santa Barbara, CA
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: LV Boxcar 62182 With Weed Chains Load
Lee
Hit send before adding the link of a more current version.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Lee Stoermer Aldie, VA
On Sunday, May 3, 2020, 16:42, Lee via groups.io <leetrains@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Tank Car Placard Locations
Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
The reporting marks are clearly present but the placards are another issue. Clearly some have been present as the marks from the removal or two above the running board clearly show as does one below the running board. But tank cars are not my forte so here we go with more questions. When did placard holders first come into general use and when were standard locations for placard holders required? This car looks older than any requirements other than the simple use of warning placards as to the cargo. I do have Ed Kaminski's tank car book bit having arrived yesterday a 100 AM it's going to be awhile before it is thoroughly read. Cordially, Don Valentine
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: LV Boxcar 62182 With Weed Chains Load
Lee
I’m thinking these may have been chains that had sharpened edges that were dragged behind a tractor or run off a PTO driven propeller under a platform deck. Would cut the weeds and thicker grasses without disturbing the ground too much and creating a lot of dust. Plus if it hit a rock they didn’t create sparks or bust a typical blade.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Lee Stoermer Aldie, VA
On Sunday, May 3, 2020, 13:10, Charles Peck <lnnrr152@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: Seaboard AF-1
Jim King
Tony … I produced the SAL B-7 in HO resin and still offer it in S scale. The HO patterns were sold to Wright Trak Models 8-ish years ago and, I think, are now owned by Greg King at Southbound Model Works. You can contact Greg by Googling his company name. The B-7 is the single door version of the AF-1. Neither car is close to the PRR X31.
Jim King http://smokymountainmodelworks.com/
|
|
|
|
Re: Tank Car Placard Locations
And on closer examination, UTLX 5274's current placard is pasted onto the tank on not on a placard board, as I had thought.
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Dave Parker via groups.io <spottab@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:46 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tank Car Placard Locations This photo dates to a time (1920) where the requirement for placard holds on tank cars was just being phased in. Prior, just about anything would do, including pasting a paper placard directly onto the tank as seen here.
The new regs of 1920 required boards that allowed for the placards to be attached in the "diamond" orientation, but that was about it. With time, the 1927 ARA standards specified the placard bards be in the more towards the middle of the car. In October of 1932, the standard called for metal-frame holders that the placard could be dropped into. I've never seen a standard for where the holders on the car ends needed to be, but they seem to be almost universally to the right of center. -- Dave Parker Swall Meadows, CAa
|
|
|
|
Re: HO Tank Car Walkway Upgrades
Don,
As Tony has noted... the number and side of dome platforms was an "option" and the purchasers ordered what they want.
But actually, I want to back out here a bit, because I frankly thought that the convention was left side or both. Pondering your assertion of right side only, I've gone looking and I have yet to actually find a photo of a post 1917 car that shows a right side
only dome platform. So if you have any of those, please share them with us! Note, that could be a left sided shot without a platform on a car type know to have a platform(s)
Now, if you want weird, in my photos I have a picture of CRTX 8, a two compartment car, with a Standard tank car frame, obviously converted from a single dome car, with the single dome removed and patched and two end dome. The view is of the right side of the
car and the dome closest to the B-end has a platform. The dome near the A-end does not. Now, this in no way addresses your question because these platforms were added when the car was rebuilt, but I have to wonder if one or both domes have platforms on the
other side?!!
Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Donald B. Valentine via groups.io <riverman_vt@...>
Sent: Sunday, May 3, 2020 1:30 PM To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io> Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] HO Tank Car Walkway Upgrades
Don,
Tony's answer was to both questions 😉
We've discussed this a number of times over the history of the list and it seems that there was some preference for the some platform to be on the left side when there was a single platform, but if you think about it, there would really be no rhyme or reason
to how a tank car was delivered to the loading/unloading site, so a single platform car could just as easily have the platform on the "wrong" side as the correct side.
Regards,
Bruce Smith
So Tony also stated in a private email on the second question,Bruce, but neither of you have yet answered that question. I absolutely agree that unless some tank cars with a single platform were turned for delivery
there is no guarantee that the single platform would always be on the same side once such a car was placed
on the delivery track. BUT....was the choice of which side of the dome the single platform was placed on with respect to the "B" end of the car
really left to the buyer or did the builder standardize things so the it was
always on the left, or always on the right, side of the dome when the car was viewed from the "B" end. Perhaps I didn't ask the question properly the first time but this is what I'm trying to determine.
Cordially, Don Valentine
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: LV Boxcar 62182 With Weed Chains Load
Tom Madden
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:09 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
I just googled "weed chains" and got a full page of links for necklaces displaying precious metal replica marijuana leaves...... I suppose "beer garden" wouldn't lead me to information on composting brewery waste, either... Tom Madden
|
|
|
|
Re: Tank Car Placard Locations
Dennis Storzek
On Sun, May 3, 2020 at 11:46 AM, Dave Parker wrote:
I've never seen a standard for where the holders on the car ends needed to be, but they seem to be almost universally to the right of center.Which would make sense, since left of center on the B end would put it in the way of operating the hand brake, so it appears the B end placement was followed on both ends. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: HO Tank Car Walkway Upgrades
Tony Thompson
DonValentine wrote:
Once again, the buyer specified how they wanted this arranged. The same is true for dome-surrounding walkways. Whether there was one, or just the plank alongside the dome, was entirely a buyer choice. I assume the single walkway intention was that an employee had to move to the side of the car with ladder and walkway in order to work around the dome. If that meant crossing to the "other side" relative to where the employee started, well, labor was cheap. Why pay for two? Tony Thompson
|
|
|
