Date   

Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Tony Thompson
 


I think he was referring to the fact that the load is all the way left on the nearest car, and not centered on the center car. 

      Not that the load rests on both end flat cars between 4 and 5 stake pockets from the end. As Bruce Smith mentioned, this is doubtless the preferred loading point.

Tony Thompson




Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

BRIAN PAUL EHNI
 

I think he was referring to the fact that the load is all the way left on the nearest car, and not centered on the center car. 

Thanks!
Brian Ehni 
(Sent from my iPhone)

On Dec 21, 2019, at 12:24 PM, Drew Bunn <drew.r.bunn@...> wrote:


Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Bruce Smith
 

Drew,

He meant end to end, not side to side 😉 and the load is definitely offset to the near end of each of the end cars. That is for good reason. The location of this load is due to several factors:

1) Most flat cars CANNOT carry their rated load concentrated at the center of their span. Offsetting the load to one end or the other allows a heavier load to be carried. In the PRR fleet, the F22 and F23 were among the only cars that could carry their rated weight in the center of the span of the car.

2) There were limits for the allowed free span between the pivot points. Too long a span would overhang on curves and could exceed line side clearances. Think about 85' passenger cars on 18" HO scale radii 😉

3) There were also limits for the free end length for the same reasons as #2, although that was less likely to be an issue

Removal of the brake wheel was no big deal... done all the time. 

While hump yards were at least 25 years old at the time, they were not common. Looking at this load, I see a card on the side of the 3rd flat. While this is most likely a route card, it may also contain the instructions "Do Not Hump". Alternatively, rules are made because of stupid people. At this point in time, that rule may yet to be in effect as everyone looks at this load and KNOWS it should not go over the hump. Give stupid folks a few more years to screw it up and the sign will be required. 

Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Drew Bunn <drew.r.bunn@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 12:24 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io <main@realstmfc.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars
 
Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Bil and List Members,
 
Interesting insights there Bill!
 
From the flat car's point of view, this would appear like it is a point load, since the flat carries the full load at the spot where the load bolsters (is there a more correct term for this?) are installed on the flat. Puting the point load right in the middle of the car would make the load stress the worst it could possibly be, and moving it closer to the trucks would help with this.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:42 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

OK. Here is my take on why the girder was not mounted to pivot on the longitudinal center of the end flat cars… 

Placing the pivot point closer to the truck would result in less overhang inward on curves. Also doing so may reduce the outward overhang at the ends of the girder. In short, there may have been operational restrictive reasons for what appears to perhaps be an odd loading.

Also, a long shot idea here, loading closer to the trucks would perhaps allow for a heavier load to be carried than what would be the limit if loaded at the longitudinal center of the car. 

Both of the above are just food for thought.

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA



On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...> wrote:

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars



Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Drew,
 
No insult taken, but perhaps I was unclear in my question...
 
I meant to say it was not centered across THE LONG WAY. Indeed, I feel as you do, that it is properly centered across the short way
 
On the flat car closest to the camera, the load comes to nearly the end sill of the car. On the flat car furthest from the camera, the load comes to only about the middle of the car. If centered the long way, both flats would have the load end at roughly the same place on both cars.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Drew Bunn
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 1:24 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers

On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Bill Keene
 

OK. Here is my take on why the girder was not mounted to pivot on the longitudinal center of the end flat cars… 

Placing the pivot point closer to the truck would result in less overhang inward on curves. Also doing so may reduce the outward overhang at the ends of the girder. In short, there may have been operational restrictive reasons for what appears to perhaps be an odd loading.

Also, a long shot idea here, loading closer to the trucks would perhaps allow for a heavier load to be carried than what would be the limit if loaded at the longitudinal center of the car. 

Both of the above are just food for thought.

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA



On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:20 AM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) <claus@...> wrote:

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars



Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Ryan Mendell
 

I would like to offer to shed some light on the Jet printing Process, as it seams there is a genuine interest by this group to further understand the process.  At work I manage and run both a 3D Systems Projet 3600 and Projet 5500 printers.  These are what are know as ‘Polyjet' or ‘Multijet' 3d printers and is what Shapeways uses for their Fine Detail processes.  The 3600 has a build area of about 8" x 12” inches and the 5500 16” x 20”. 

The print head on these printers has two rows of jets, one for the model or body material as Tom called it and another for the wax or support material.  The print head on the Projet 5500 has 2400 jets across a width of 8”.  This works out to 300DPI.  To achieve higher resolution the print head shifts sideways by a pixel width and makes two passes for each layer to achieve 600DPI.  For 750DPI it makes three passes for each layer and shifts both left and right of the first pass by 0.66 of a pixel width.  I may have the math wrong for 750 DPI but I hope you get the idea.

After each layer is deposited at what ever DPI selected, the head has a spinning roller that pushes or forces the deposited resin down into the previous layer.  Behind the roller is a knife blade that slices the resin layer to the choose layer thickness. The final step is the head has a UV light that turns on and cures the layer.  The 5500 head is only half the width of the build plate and must make a shift half the build plate width to print the entire 16” width.  The 3600 print head is the full width of the build plate.  

Part print orientation is critical to get better printed parts. The head moves in the x axis.  Thus if you want to orient your part along or across the print direction you need to pick which side of your part aligns with the X axis in your CAD file.  I always design models as flat kits with the show side facing up on the build plate so no wax is used to support the critical faces of the part.  

To answer an earlier question as to the rigidity of these machines.  They are built like machine tools.  They have heavy frames, use servo motors(not stepper motors) and linear guide way bearings just like the CNC mills we have at work also.  The Projet 5500 weighs in at 3000lbs. 

As far as process control.  There really isn’t any.  You load the part into the software, Orient it the way you want and press the print button.  The only human involvement is the support removal.  The wax is melted off in an oven, and then the last of it is removed in an ultrasonic cleaner.  The big issue is warpage caused when the part is in the oven.  I no longer remove wax for model parts in the oven.  I remove it with a hobby knife and a dissolve the last of it with alcohol.  Thus avoiding warpage.  Unfortunately Shapways doesn’t offer manual removal of support material.  If your part is not symmetrical, or has thin sections and thick sections there is a good chance it will warp in the support removal oven.  You end up with bent parts or dimensional issues. 

I hope this explains things a bit.

Ryan Mendell






On Dec 21, 2019, at 1:25 AM, Tom Madden via Groups.Io <pullmanboss@...> wrote:

Fine detail is a jet printing process. I believe the jet printers Shapeways is using are 600 x 600 DPI X & Y, and at 16 microns per layer the Z is 1600 DPI. (3D Systems has 750 x 750 DPI machines with 13 micron layer capability, and 1600 x 900 but only for 32 micron layers.) 
If these don't sound like very high resolution printers, remember that there are two jet nozzels per pixel - you can place either wax or body material at each location. 

Tom Madden


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Drew Bunn
 

Not to sound insulting,  Claus - but I think you're seeing things. There is no way that load would remain upright unless it was perfectly centered on those flats. I've unloaded centerbeams, and two forklift operators have to remove the load evenly on both sides or the car will fall over.

Cheers


On Sat., Dec. 21, 2019, 10:21 Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;), <claus@...> wrote:
Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Lloyd Keyser
 

Sorry, I just did not think of it. Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

mel perry
 

out of curiousity, why weren't these
comments/questions not included,
in the OP?, where they belonged, 
instead of creating a seperate thtead?
mel perry

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019, 9:13 AM Bill Lugg <luggw1@...> wrote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the
United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at
Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at
Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke
fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg



On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
> Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
> built and where?
> Chuck Peck
>
> On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...
> <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:
>
>     Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser
>
>




Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Bill Lugg
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_yard#Hump_yard

"According to the PRRT&HS PRR Chronology, the first hump yard in the United States was opened May 11, 1903 as part of the Altoona Yards at Bells Mills (East Altoona). Other sources report the PRR yard at Youngwood, PA which opened in the 1880s to serve the Connellsville coke fields as the first U.S. hump yard."

Only as far away as Google and Wikipedia.  ;o)

Bill Lugg

On 12/21/19 9:56 AM, Charles Peck wrote:
Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@... <mailto:lloydkeyser@...>> wrote:

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Charles Peck
 

Lloyd's question raises another question. When was the first hump yard
built and where?
Chuck Peck

On Sat, Dec 21, 2019 at 11:45 AM Lloyd Keyser <lloydkeyser@...> wrote:
Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Lloyd Keyser
 

Why is there not a Do No Hump sign on this load  Lloyd Keyser


Re: Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 

Hi Brian and List Members,
 
Thanks Brian for calling our attention to this.
 
I find it interesting that the bridge girder is NOT mounted on the exact center of the trio of PRR class FM flat cars, and the bridge girder is instead somewhat closer to the camera. This does two things that I find somewhat puzzling...
 
(1) It imbalances the load on the trucks on the two flats at the ends - for each of these two cars, one truck will be carrying more load than the other truck
 
(2) It required the brake wheel on the flat closest to the camera to be removed. Had the load been placed so it was in the center, that car maybe could have kept its brake wheel in place, as is the case on the flat furthest from the camera. Note there is a removed brakewheel mounted to the deck of the flat closest to the camera, and another removed brakewheel mounted on the deck of the flat furthest from the camera - presumably this last one came off the midle flat car
 
Any thoughts on this?
 
Claus Schlund
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, December 21, 2019 10:08 AM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Bridge girder on three PRR FM flat cars

Brian Rochon
 

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-12-21-19/X5845.jpg

 

From EL photo archive today.

 

Brian Rochon


Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Tom Madden
 

Fine detail is a jet printing process. I believe the jet printers Shapeways is using are 600 x 600 DPI X & Y, and at 16 microns per layer the Z is 1600 DPI. (3D Systems has 750 x 750 DPI machines with 13 micron layer capability, and 1600 x 900 but only for 32 micron layers.) 
If these don't sound like very high resolution printers, remember that there are two jet nozzels per pixel - you can place either wax or body material at each location. 

Tom Madden


Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Tom Madden
 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 08:30 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
..., can anyone tell me why SLA parts are oriented at an angle? Is it an attempt to change the angle of the overhangs so they don't need supports, or simply to provide more room for the supports?

Standard, "top down" SLA parts don't need to be angled - each layer is created atop the previous one. On "bottom up" SLA printers like the Form 2 each layer is created against the surface of the resin tray and has to be broken free of the tray surface after each layer is printed. Angling the part minimizes the area of the part in contact with the tray so it's always that joint that gives way and not the part as the build plate rises after each layer is printed. The CLIP bottom up printer uses a permeable tray and a process that keeps a layer of oxygen (?) between the tray and the part so it doesn't attach to the tray, but they (so far) have chosen not to serve the low end market.

Back to Tom's Shapeways Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic parts, is this a fused deposition process? One would think that some angular overhang would be possible, where each layer would project out less than half the width of the filament being deposited, and therefore be self supporting, like the overhanging bricks in fancy brickwork. If the underside of those handrail brackets would have projected from the vertical surface at a 45 deg. angle, could they have been built without the wax support and it's attendant track?
Fine detail is a jet printing process. I believe the jet printers Shapeways is using are 600 x 600 DPI X & Y, and at 16 microns per layer the Z is 1600 DPI. (3D Systems has 750 x 750 DPI machines with 13 micron layer capability, and 1600 x 900 but only for 32 micron layers.) In this process each individual dot/voxel has to have something under it so the wax is unavoidable. With standard SLA you can have unsupported overhangs of half the laser spot diameter from layer to layer but those layers are thicker - like 0.002".

Tom Madden


Youngstown Door Nomenclature

Andy Carlson
 

Hello-

Two years ago I was inspired from a post by Bill Welch. I answered with a short description of the various Youngstown doors. I was asked for photos and today I added illustrations of the common Youngstown steel doors (YSD). No mention is made of door appliances (hardware such as latches) which is a story by itself. Corrections are encouraged.


From 2017...............

 
Hi, I would like to jump in here with some thoughts.

Bill Welch, an historian as much as a modeler, has questions identifying doors from the Youngstown door co. produced during our era of interest. He is not alone.

As in most other components used on steam era freight cars, door manufacturers simply offered product for applications by width/height. Small changes were often running changes when an improvement made its way into production. Even so,there were three very distinct styles of Youngstown doors made in our favorite era.

Authors, modelers and tool makers need to be able communicate the ID of the various doors to clear confusion. Similar to how modelers issued "phases" for EMD's F unit line of locomotives (Something EMD never did) to communicate and make sense of the various deviations over time, Youngstown doors have had modeler's IDs applied. Unfortunately, standards have not yet been agreed upon; so confusion is not avoided; such as Bill Welch's.

Simple code initials (such as Y2-A) work well for large tables (such as Ed Hawkins' great freight car summaries) where the reader can refer to the bottom of the table to a more verbose description. However, simply identifying a door in an article as a "Y2-A" isn't helpful to 99% of the readers outside of these tables. We need a nomenclature which is intuitive, brief, understandable and made a standard.

I propose following Dan Hall's method to id'ing Youngstown doors. Dan makes various Youngstown and superior doors for HO in his Southwest Scale Models' line.

Pre-war Youngstown doors were typically made of 3 (sometimes 4) pressed steel sheets riveted together to make the size sufficient to cover the door openings. The riveted joints were in the flat area of the sheet recessed towards the inside of the car. Each section has ribs stamped into it which forms rectangular panels which are very easily spotted and counted from even lesser quality photos.

A typical Youngstown door on a 1937 AAR box will have , counting from top-to-bottom a 5/6/5 pattern of panels. To accommodate differing heights, the door maker simply uses taller sheets for the top and bottom sheets so the adjustment of height is made in the joint area. For a pre-war Youngstown door, this feature is noticable and should be addressed. At a minimum, the riveted joint sections produce a panel which is nearly identical in dimensions as the 5/6/5 panels themselves. Being the shortest variant, I call these -S (for short). A taller door will have the joint panel somewhat taller than the standard panels, so I label these as -M (for medium). The tallest Youngstown door's joint panels are almost twice the height of the regular panels. If the door needs to be even taller for its application, the maker will simply add more panels (though in the pre-war time, doors would more likely have LESS panels for inside height cars lower than the AAR '37). The taller joint panel doors would have a -T ( for tall) to cover the door openings for a 10'6" IH car <pre-war 5/6/5-T>.

          A 1937 AAR pre-war Youngstown 5/6/5-S (The S need not be attached as it is obvious)




          A Youngstown 5/6/5-T door on a single sheathed box car




Examples:  A '37 AAR boxcar would typically be 6' pre-war 5/6/5-S Youngstown Steel door. Simplified to <Pre-war 5/6/5 YSD> (the "S" could be left off as it could be inferred that the most common variant is the 'S'. A 10'6" IH AAR box car would have a taller door opening and the most common door for these cars was the <pre-war 5/6/5-T>. Fewer doors were built with the 'M' spacing.

1947 saw the introduction of the improved Youngstown door. Lessons learned from more than a decade of production of the pre-war versions allowed a redesign which was very noticeable. Changes to the perimeter frame area strengthened the door. To accommodate these changes, the joint section was substantially changed. Now it was more like a crimped joint and no longer would the joint area be where slight variances in height would be achieved. From then on the height differences would be totally from the addition or subtraction of panels, and to a lesser degree, variations in the perimeter frame.

Most AAR box cars built at this time were to the 10'6" inside height. For about one year, this new door had a panel count of 6/6/5. After this brief period, the doors were made with 5/6/6 panels, and continued for decades with little changes. Since the joint sections were un-changing, no 'S' 'M' or 'T' appellations were necessary. A typical door for a 10'6" car would be <5/6/6 Improved YSD>.

    Single year (1946/47) offering of the "upside down" 6/6/5 Improved Youngstown door




     A 5/6/6 Improved Youngstown steel door (Late 1947 and on)


Youngstown steel improved doors for 10'0" nominal height cars were common in two variations; a 4/6/6 and a 5/6/5



Before this big change, around 1946, both Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe received Youngstown doors which shared techniques of both designs. Dan Hall, like nearly everyone else, labels these doors as "Interim-Improved". The SP door was <5/5/5 interim-improved YSD>. The Santa Fe's 10'6" IH doors were <5/6/5 interiom-improved YSD>. These SP doors gained a lot of notoriety as the doors used on the fleet of "Overnight" express box cars.


After the time of interest to our audience, Youngstown continued to get orders for doors in ever increasing widths. For awhile, the largest width was an eight foot wide door. When orders for a 9' door came, the order was met with the stamping of the 8' doors with a 6 inch wide perimeter frame. This was soon dropped as stampings with full 9' width were then produced. Later still, orders for 10' doors came in and these orders were initially met with the 6" perimeter frame added to the new 9' stamping.






The most common YSD doors from 1937 to 1948:
pre-war5/6/5-S YSD  (Red Caboose & Intermountain in HO)
pre-war5/6/5-T YSD for mostly 10'6" cars  (Intermountain in HO)
Interim-Improved 5/5/5 YSD (SP 1946-Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Interim-Improved 5/6/5 YSD (ATSF Bx-44 1946-Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Improved 6/6/5 YSD (1947 mostly) (CB&T shops & Southwest Scale Models in HO)
Improved 5/6/6 YSD 1948 and on (Kadee, Red Caboose, Branchline, Intermountain in HO)

Regards,
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

.

__,_._,___





Re: 3D printing (Was: New early P&R steel.....)

Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 03:05 PM, Tom Madden wrote:
I believe Corey Bonsall, who does the D&RGW and Utah Coal Route gons, uses a Form 2 "upside down" SLA printer where the part is built from the bottom up as it's lifted, layer by layer, out of the resin. For best results parts need to be oriented at an angle and parts of any complexity require a literal forest of supports.
Now that we have some folks with real hands-on experience in this discussion, can anyone tell me why SLA parts are oriented at an angle? Is it an attempt to change the angle of the overhangs so they don't need supports, or simply to provide more room for the supports?

Back to Tom's Shapeways Smoothest Fine Detail Plastic parts, is this a fused deposition process? One would think that some angular overhang would be possible, where each layer would project out less than half the width of the filament being deposited, and therefore be self supporting, like the overhanging bricks in fancy brickwork. If the underside of those handrail brackets would have projected from the vertical surface at a 45 deg. angle, could they have been built without the wax support and it's attendant track?

Dennis Storzek


Re: Turtle Load

Dennis Storzek
 

On Fri, Dec 20, 2019 at 05:06 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
John, not a violation.

The AAR districts that border CANADA include Minnesota and Pennsylvania.
But back in the steam era there was also the issue of tariffs on the foreign built equipment. However, I note the sign on this Grand Trunk Ry. car says the load is going via CN Ry. the Grand Trunk's new owner. So this is actually a line haul on a Canadian railway. My best guess is that a homeward bound Canadian empty was used since it returned the car to Canada under load, which was allowable under the car service rules. The fact that the car came back into the US at the other end of its journey is a separate issue.

Dennis Storzek