Date   

Re: ORER question

cinderandeight@...
 

Frank,
The April 1958 ORER also lists the data Ed sites with the 10/57 entry
date.
Rich Burg


Re: Route card or tariff late 40s for Winona Railroad

Mark P.
 

I would like to see a tariff card as well. Online photos also show Virginian, L&N and Southern hoppers, as well as N&W hoppers.

An advertisement is at <http://replica.palni.edu/u?/winona,430>, along with many Winona photos.

I don't have my references handy, but as I recall, this routing was the result of a Supreme Court ruling around 1911. Both the NYC and PRR would interchange the coal with the Winona at Warsaw, IN, then the Winona would take it 16 or so miles north to New Paris where it would interchange with the Wabash, using shared interchange tracks with the NYC. The Winona paralleled the NYC (Big Four's Michigan Branch, today's NS Marion Branch) from Warsaw through New Paris to Goshen, so the NYC interchange at Warsaw always seemed strange to me.

Mark Plank
Researching the Winona Railroad at <http://members.kconline.com/plank/winhome.htm>

-----Original Message-----


Would anyone perchance have a late forties tariff or route from the N&W, NYC,
PRR or other coal source, over Winona RR to the Chicago area? (the interchanges
were at Warsaw and New Paris IN)

reference:
http://yesteryear.clunette.com/winonadarr.html
...
In 1948 the Winona transferred 3,900 car loads of coal from the
Pennsylvania and New York Central to the Wabash at New Paris, by 1951 the number

of loads of coal had dropped to 1,277. 1951 also showed 1,309 cars of sand
and gravel shipped from the pit at Leesburg and 400 cars for the Litchfield, now

AMPI plant. Despite this freight business, the Winona was no longer
profitable.

A conductor friend says these were in N&W hoppers.


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tom Madden wrote:
eBay item 390129541723 is a listing for this book and features a nice photo of the cover.
A good photo of the jacket is also readily available at our web site (URL below) or here:

http://www.signaturepress.com/P-SB.gif

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


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

eBay item 390129541723 is a listing for this book and features a nice photo of the cover.

Tom Madden

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

Can I borrow your copy? :-)
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you wouldn't have a copy of this book
<g>.

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


Re: ORER question

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Ed Hawkins wrote:
Frank,
From the 4/57 ORER, Transit Company Limited had a total of 44 30-ton
narrow gauge cars in series BMMX 50-99 (AAR class TM). Data for gallons
is not specified. While the ORER date is 4/57, the reporting date in
the box is dated 4/55. Data from the 4/55 ORER is identical, and the
reporting date is also 4/55.

In case this is of use to you, the 1/59 ORER lists 44 cars numbered IOX
50-99, and the reporting date in the box is 10/57. Presumably this was
about the time when the cars had their reporting marks changed. I don't
have immediate access to any 1958 ORERs to help fill in the gap.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins
Thanks, Ed.

This causes me something of a "hmm" moment, but it does suggest that by
1957 the IOX and BMMX marks were no longer used on standard gauge cars. It
also clarifies things further, in that the TCLX, SUPX and COBX marks were
listed under UTL by 4/55 (would it be much of a bother to ask what the UTL
listing from 4/57 says about TCLX, SUPX and COBX (and maybe PRPX and CSGX
- these also belonged to Transit Co. Ltd, and were still listed under TCL
at 1/53)).

For the most part I'd been ignoring the narrow gauge equipment, since as
far as I know those were restricted to Newfoundland. It's the standard
gauge cars of IOX, TCLX, PRPX, SUPX, CSGX and BMMX - all of which
eventually were under the Transit Co. listing - that I've been trying to
sort out.

Thanks,
Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Can I borrow your copy? :-)
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that you wouldn't have a copy of this book <g>.

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


Re: ORER question

Ed Hawkins
 

On Dec 9, 2009, at 7:54 PM, Frank Valoczy wrote:

I'm wondering (again) if anyone could help with an ORER request: this
time
a bit more specific than in previous times. I'd like to find the
Transit
Co. Ltd. entry from 1957; failing that specific year, any from between
1953 and 1959 would be useful. (By 1959, though, the reporting marks
I'm
interested in are under the UTL entry, I don't know if this is the
case
for 1958, though).
Frank,
From the 4/57 ORER, Transit Company Limited had a total of 44 30-ton
narrow gauge cars in series BMMX 50-99 (AAR class TM). Data for gallons
is not specified. While the ORER date is 4/57, the reporting date in
the box is dated 4/55. Data from the 4/55 ORER is identical, and the
reporting date is also 4/55.

In case this is of use to you, the 1/59 ORER lists 44 cars numbered IOX
50-99, and the reporting date in the box is 10/57. Presumably this was
about the time when the cars had their reporting marks changed. I don't
have immediate access to any 1958 ORERs to help fill in the gap.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: pre-1950 PS-1 (was New file uploaded to STMFC)

Tim O'Connor
 

Bill, Steve and Brian described some pre-1950 "PS-1" differences.
I'll take Tony's word that Pullman was using the PS-1 designation
in 1947, but there were a lot of differences not only between these
cars and later PS-1's but a number of differences between different
railroad orders for such cars. This is the reason Kadee and others
have never produced a pre-1950 "PS-1" -- there isn't just one car
to do.

IMO the best solution is a series of resin kits! All we need is
someone who knows how to build excellent masters. :-)

The 3-foot rule works ok on the layout, but not on my workbench.
The OptiVisor tells no lies!

Tim O'Connor

I have been reviewing photos for some time and it appears to me that the only revision necessary to get real close to a Bx-52 starting with the Kadee Bx-57 is to change the door to a 7-panel Superior type. I have even seen a photo of a Bx-52 with the 5-panel door version. A little more work could reshape the tap at the frame a bit. I must confess, I have no idea about the roof. From my point of view -- especially with my eyesight -- such modifications of the Kadee PS-1will pass the three foot rule.

If I am missing something, please educate me. One is never too old to learn something new. Besides, this is my next project so if I am going to screw this up it would be most helpful to know in advance.

Thanks,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA


Route card or tariff late 40s for Winona Railroad

Allen Rueter
 

Would anyone perchance have a late forties tariff or route from the N&W, NYC, PRR or other coal source, over Winona RR to the Chicago area? (the interchanges were at Warsaw and New Paris IN)

reference:
http://yesteryear.clunette.com/winonadarr.html
...
In 1948 the Winona transferred 3,900 car loads of coal from the
Pennsylvania and New York Central to the Wabash at New Paris, by 1951 the number
of loads of coal had dropped to 1,277. 1951 also showed 1,309 cars of sand
and gravel shipped from the pit at Leesburg and 400 cars for the Litchfield, now
AMPI plant. Despite this freight business, the Winona was no longer
profitable.

A conductor friend says these were in N&W hoppers.
--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Tim O'Connor
 

(I'm not sure that Pullman Standard even called them PS-1's back then.)

They certainly did, Tim. Look at the dust jacket photo on
Kaminski's P-S book.
Tony Thompson
Can I borrow your copy? :-)

Tim


Re: Tank car question

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Length of tank less end bulges: 36' 9"
Tank diameter: 9' 1"
Dome diameter: 4' 10"
Dome height from highest point of tank to rim: 3'
Frank, if those are HO dimensions, this is a tank car like many
narrow gauge ones: converted from a standard gauge tank car. It would
be awful big in TT.
Those dimensions are what I measured with my calipers conveniently marked
as a TT scale rule (i.e. 10ths of inches and smaller). So, that's 36 TT
scale feet 9 TT scale inches, e.g.

That was my gut feeling, too, that this is rather bigger than anything
that would have seen the rails in the STMFC era. But, I thought it'd be
worth asking, since there *were* odd cars around!

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Outside Braced AC&Y Gondolas

Bob Lucas
 

Looking for backround info and modeling suggestions for a unusual (ex-Rock Island?) gondolas leased by AC&Y (see pics) in the late 1950's for pipe traffic. There were ten cars, series ACY 1510-1519. ORER data shows these gons to be 70-ton, 1727 cuf, 48'11" IL, 4'0" IH, drop ends, wood floor and unknown type trucks.

I'd like to model these... am open to ideas.... perhaps kitbash two Intermountain USRA composite gons using styrene to simulate the metal sides? Any ideas appreciated. Also, would like to find drawings or additional photos.

http://acyprez.fileave.com/4261000-R01-005%20-%20Copy.jpg

http://acyprez.fileave.com/Rock%20Island%20Gon%20%20%2084588%20-%20Copy.jpg


Re: Tank car question

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
I have a resin casting of a tank car tank. It was intended for HOn3, but I picked it up because it was cheap, and am hoping to be able to use it for a TT scale model. I'm wondering if someone might be able to suggest something I could use it for based on the dimensions, as all the tank cars I know dimensions for are rather smaller.

Length of tank less end bulges: 36' 9"
Tank diameter: 9' 1"
Dome diameter: 4' 10"
Dome height from highest point of tank to rim: 3'
Frank, if those are HO dimensions, this is a tank car like many narrow gauge ones: converted from a standard gauge tank car. It would be awful big in TT.

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


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

John Hile
 

--- In STMFC@..., William Keene <wakeene@...> wrote:

If I am missing something, please educate me. One is never too old to learn something new. Besides, this is my next project so if I am going to screw this up it would be most helpful to know in advance.



Bill,

The Bx-52's (ATSF 276500-276749, blt 1947) also had the following "early PS-1" characteristics: Ends - did not have the rectangles at the top of the peak; Roof - end panels are flat (not same as all of the others). All wore the "Grand Canyon Line" slogan when new, and had a transverse mounted brake reservoir.

The Bx-57's (ATSF 31250-31749, blt 1950) had the rectangles on the ends and all of the roof panels are the same raised-panel type. Also, when new, the Bx-57's were not painted correctly per Santa Fe specs...the passenger train slogan was on the right side of the car (should have been on the left) and the "Ship-and-Travel" lettering was on the left side (should have been on the right). The brake reservoir was parallel to the center sill.

Side sill tabs were slightly different, as where the bottom corners of the ends, and the stirrup steps.

A nice source of info I have used for evaluating the Kadee (and other PS-1's) is Ed Hawkins' Excel spreadsheet on the Steam Era Freight Cars web site:

http://www.steamfreightcars.com/prototype/frtcars/protofrtcarsmain.html

Hope this is helpful,

John Hile


SF BX-52 was new file

Brian Carlson
 

As discussed many times on the list, the Pre 1950 PS-1's were vastly
different than post 1950 cars. For in-depth changes see Ted Culotta's
article in the January 2008 issue of RMC. Major differences include ends,
roof, side-sill tabs, underframe. Doors are actually a relatively easy
change. Ted revised much more in his article of a New Haven. Some cars were
also 10'-0." Santa Fe cars were 10'-6".

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.
Cheektowaga NY

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
William Keene
Sent: Wednesday, December 09, 2009 8:55 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] New file uploaded to STMFC

Tim,.

I will bite on this one regarding the Bx-52...

I have been reviewing photos for some time and it appears to me that the
only revision necessary to get real close to a Bx-52 starting with the Kadee
Bx-57 is to change the door to a 7-panel Superior type. I have even seen a
photo of a Bx-52 with the 5-panel door version. A little more work could
reshape the tap at the frame a bit. I must confess, I have no idea about the
roof. From my point of view -- especially with my eyesight -- such
modifications of the Kadee PS-1will pass the three foot rule.

If I am missing something, please educate me. One is never too old to learn
something new. Besides, this is my next project so if I am going to screw
this up it would be most helpful to know in advance.


Tank car question

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

I have a resin casting of a tank car tank. It was intended for HOn3, but I
picked it up because it was cheap, and am hoping to be able to use it for
a TT scale model. I'm wondering if someone might be able to suggest
something I could use it for based on the dimensions, as all the tank cars
I know dimensions for are rather smaller.

Length of tank less end bulges: 36' 9"
Tank diameter: 9' 1"
Dome diameter: 4' 10"
Dome height from highest point of tank to rim: 3'

Thanks,

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

William Keene <wakeene@...>
 

Tim,.

I will bite on this one regarding the Bx-52...

I have been reviewing photos for some time and it appears to me that the only revision necessary to get real close to a Bx-52 starting with the Kadee Bx-57 is to change the door to a 7-panel Superior type. I have even seen a photo of a Bx-52 with the 5-panel door version. A little more work could reshape the tap at the frame a bit. I must confess, I have no idea about the roof. From my point of view -- especially with my eyesight -- such modifications of the Kadee PS-1will pass the three foot rule.

If I am missing something, please educate me. One is never too old to learn something new. Besides, this is my next project so if I am going to screw this up it would be most helpful to know in advance.

Thanks,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

On Dec 9, 2009, at 5:32 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:


It's kind of misleading to say there's an HO model for the Bx-52,
even one that needs to be "modified" (rebuilt is more like it) a
1947 design "PS-1" (I'm not sure that Pullman Standard even called
them PS-1's back then.) Kadee makes the Bx-57, a 1950 PS-1, but
Intermountain does not because IRC's kit is the post-1953 design.

Also why say that the Bx-48/50/51/53 need modified C&BT kits, when
C&BT basically made the correct carbodies? (Almost all kits need
some amount of detail changes to be more accurate.)

The flat car section is missing the Tichy/Walthers General Steel
Castings 53'6" flats (Ft-W/Ft-3/Ft-5).

Tim O'Connor

File : /ATSF craftsman kits 12-09.pdf
Uploaded by : peteraue <peteraue@...>

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/ATSF%20craftsman%20kits%2012-09.pdf

peteraue <peteraue@...>


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


ORER question

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Hi,

I'm wondering (again) if anyone could help with an ORER request: this time
a bit more specific than in previous times. I'd like to find the Transit
Co. Ltd. entry from 1957; failing that specific year, any from between
1953 and 1959 would be useful. (By 1959, though, the reporting marks I'm
interested in are under the UTL entry, I don't know if this is the case
for 1958, though).

Thanks,

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
It's kind of misleading to say there's an HO model for the Bx-52, even one that needs to be "modified" (rebuilt is more like it) a 1947 design "PS-1" (I'm not sure that Pullman Standard even called them PS-1's back then.)
They certainly did, Tim. Look at the dust jacket photo on Kaminski's P-S book.

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


Re: New file uploaded to STMFC

Tim O'Connor
 

It's kind of misleading to say there's an HO model for the Bx-52,
even one that needs to be "modified" (rebuilt is more like it) a
1947 design "PS-1" (I'm not sure that Pullman Standard even called
them PS-1's back then.) Kadee makes the Bx-57, a 1950 PS-1, but
Intermountain does not because IRC's kit is the post-1953 design.

Also why say that the Bx-48/50/51/53 need modified C&BT kits, when
C&BT basically made the correct carbodies? (Almost all kits need
some amount of detail changes to be more accurate.)

The flat car section is missing the Tichy/Walthers General Steel
Castings 53'6" flats (Ft-W/Ft-3/Ft-5).

Tim O'Connor

File : /ATSF craftsman kits 12-09.pdf
Uploaded by : peteraue <peteraue@...>

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/ATSF%20craftsman%20kits%2012-09.pdf

peteraue <peteraue@...>