Date   
Re: Atlas HO Meat Reefer Reservations

Bill Welch
 

Thank you Ray.

Bill Welch

Re: Metal Wheels

Alexander Schneider Jr
 

It should be noted that NMRA RP 24.3, "Axles", specifies only the MAXIMUM length, which is 1.035". They also illustrate Type I axles, with the cone ends we commonly see, and Type II with square ends, which I vaguely remember on a Bachmann tender. (Off topic)

 

This document was last revised in 1982. It seems like a proposal to update it would be timely, and something between the two Accurail designs of 1.010" and 1.025” would be a good “preferred” value. Lifelike seems to be the dominant replacement wheel at 1.015”. Given Bowser’s use of the above maximum, and European use of 0.990”, those might be the minimum and maximum values. The revision ought to suggest a maximum value for the difference between the truck and the axle; clearly using 1.015” wheelsets in a Bowser truck doesn’t work very well. The minimum value is, of course, zero.

 

Has anyone measured Central Valley trucks to determine what wheel set would be a good replacement? The need to replacement of wheel sets on those is driven by wheel shape, not getting rid of plastic. I realize there were many different styles and the values may vary, and of course passenger and freight used different wheel sizes.

 

Alex Schneider

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Dennis Storzek
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 5:25 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Metal Wheels

 

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 01:33 PM, Denny Anspach wrote:

Probably the most ubiquitous trucks used in the RPM freight car modeling community are the Accurail “Bettendorf".  Their consistent and reliable maximum rollability/minimum end play axle length choices have varied slightly among molding numbers 1-4, the most common being 1.010”, with 1.025” occasionally.  Their superb Andrews trucks benefit consistently with 1.025” axles.  

 

Doc,
I've been finding this whole discussion amusing. The move to shorter axle lengths isn't because of "CAD design" whatever that is, but simply the result of paying attention to the actual prototype dimensions. When Athearn tooled their plastic trucks decades ago, they adopted the 1.035" axle length because that was NMRA recommended practice, and the overall width of the truck came out to whatever it came out to. Red Caboose did something similar years later when they made a truck with the full profile of the journal boxes on the back of the sideframe... only problem was that forced the overall width of the truck to be overly wide, to the point that the journals stick out from under older prototype cars.

When I designed the Accurail truck mold, close to thirty years ago now, I tried to keep the overall width of the trucks to scale... and had all sorts of complaints that the common replacement wheels of the day wouldn't fit, so I jumped through some hoops to squeeze a few more thousandths of depth into the scale size journal boxes. Now I'm seeing  a general trend toward an axle length that would have fit the original design well. I'm sure this is driven by the desire to make the trucks scale width, and that is good, but the width of the trucks is one of those things that NOBODY was thinking of in years past.

Dennis Storzek

Re: Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Claus and friends,

Did anyone notice the globe of a gas pump near the center? I'm no gas pump expert, but it looks like 1920s type, which is in line with the date someone else offered.

Somebody remarked that this couldn't be a coal trestle, and I will allow there are other possibilities. Covered coal trestles of this type were quite common in New England due to the heavy snow.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/6/19 6:45 PM, Claus Schlund &#92;(HGM&#92;) wrote:

Hi Bob, Garth, and List members,
 
Notice in the first image linked below (image number 7385), that there is both a derail and a chock or barrier of some sort to prevent the boxcar from rolling and fouling the main line.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Bob,

The "covered structure" is likely a dump trestle for domestic heating coal, something a lot of lumber dealers also sold. I recently photographed a similar uncovered structure at the Montpelier mansion near Orange, Virginia. The coal trestle is still there with its rails intact (and also a private freight shed). Because the spur was privately owned, they track was left intact when the Southern Railroad removed the switch many years ago.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/5/19 4:04 PM, Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io wrote:

Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Old but undated photo:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7385.jpg

The industry on the spur is interesting:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7383.jpg

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7382.jpg

Perhaps a construction supplies business? I also see railroad ties along with lumber and pipe. The spur leads into a covered structure, purpose unknown.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA



Re: Metal Wheels

Mark Stamm
 

The NMRA practice is what has me in a pickle. I have tons of Bowser H21 hoppers; my primary interest is the PRR. Those plastic wheels have to go and to my knowledge only Reboxx makes replacement sets in the 1.035 length. Any other wheel set I have tried has to much slop side to side.

Mark P Stamm
Mark at Euphoriatt dot Com

Sent from my mobile device

Re: Atlas HO Meat Reefer Reservations

Ray Breyer
 

Side ladders versus side grabs.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


On Wednesday, August 7, 2019, 06:33:12 AM CDT, Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:


Among the several items Atlas is taking reservations for are their three styles of meat reefers: https://mycaboose.com/new-releases/atlas-ho-rolling-stock-summer-advanced-reservations?mc_cid=e5cbde1b3e&mc_eid=fef507ff99&page=1&utm_campaign=e5cbde1b3e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_09_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Caboose+Newsletter&utm_term=0_907397b93c-e5cbde1b3e-100264421
I am going to reserve one or two of the Truss Rod types:  Part #150-20001680

I was unaware they had two different styles or types w/o Truss Rods:
—36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 1 Part #150-20001678
36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 2 Part #150-20001679

Can anyone please tell me what the difference is between these two Part Numbers?

Bill Welch

Atlas HO Meat Reefer Reservations

Bill Welch
 

Among the several items Atlas is taking reservations for are their three styles of meat reefers: https://mycaboose.com/new-releases/atlas-ho-rolling-stock-summer-advanced-reservations?mc_cid=e5cbde1b3e&mc_eid=fef507ff99&page=1&utm_campaign=e5cbde1b3e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_09_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Caboose+Newsletter&utm_term=0_907397b93c-e5cbde1b3e-100264421
I am going to reserve one or two of the Truss Rod types:  Part #150-20001680

I was unaware they had two different styles or types w/o Truss Rods:
—36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 1 Part #150-20001678
36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 2 Part #150-20001679

Can anyone please tell me what the difference is between these two Part Numbers?

Bill Welch

Re: WP Dispatch Service [was Less Than Carload Shipments]

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Fred,

Walthers did offer the Merchandise Service decals up into the 1970s. Even if you could find some, Walthers decals that old have a bad habit of going to pieces when soaked.


Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/7/19 2:39 AM, Fred Jansz wrote:
Hi Garth,

You are right no manufacturer offered us a correct scale model of the WP Merchandise Dispatch cars.
However, Speedwitch offered the 9'6" WP 20001-series cars in resin years ago (kit K114).
Unfortunately no decals are available AFAIK.

cheers, Fred Jansz

Re: WP Dispatch Service [was Less Than Carload Shipments]

Fred Jansz
 

Hi Garth,

You are right no manufacturer offered us a correct scale model of the WP Merchandise Dispatch cars.
However, Speedwitch offered the 9'6" WP 20001-series cars in resin years ago (kit K114).
Unfortunately no decals are available AFAIK.

cheers, Fred Jansz

Re: Metal Wheels

Tony Thompson
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:

The move to shorter axle lengths isn't because of "CAD design" whatever that is, but simply the result of paying attention to the actual prototype dimensions. When Athearn tooled their plastic trucks decades ago, they adopted the 1.035" axle length because that was NMRA recommended practice, and the overall width of the truck came out to whatever it came out to. . .

When I designed the Accurail truck mold, close to thirty years ago now, I tried to keep the overall width of the trucks to scale... and had all sorts of complaints that the common replacement wheels of the day wouldn't fit, so I jumped through some hoops to squeeze a few more thousandths of depth into the scale size journal boxes. Now I'm seeing  a general trend toward an axle length that would have fit the original design well. 

   Thanks for these insights, Dennis. It is certainly evident that newer trucks and wheel sets work with shorter axles.

Tony Thompson



Re: Metal Wheels

Tony Thompson
 

Denny Anspach wrote:

 I would gently quibble with the assertion that this relatively short (for the US) axle length of 1.002” is the ideal for general replacement, notwithstanding the fact that they may be superb for Tangent’s own trucks, or for other current high end model trucks (the majority of which probably are OK with their own OEM wheel sets). Replacements imply replacements of existing truck wheel sets  of an installed base of model box and passenger cars, the ages of which extend up to a decade or two, or more. 

    This is of course correct. An axle of 1.002-inch length will flop around badly and in fact not roll well in a classic Athearn truck, but is too big for many brass trucks. I would submit that it won't work well in the Accurail Andrews, with its 1.025-inch "best fit" axles, either. Anyone who thinks that ANY chosen wheelset brand fits everything is either inexperienced or cannot tell what rolls well or, perhaps, is not paying attention.

Tony Thompson



Re: Metal Wheels

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Denny and List Members,
 
Denny wrote: "they... were available with both wheels insulated"
 
What is the benefit of having both wheels insulated? What exactly makes that a useful thing? Is it perhaps so they can be used in a brass truck and one need not worry about orientation?
 
Hoping for illumination on the subject.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 
 
 
 

----- Original Message ----- 
Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2019 4:33 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Metal Wheels

David Lehlbach reports that Tangent's HO high quality replacement wheel sets have an axle length of 1.002” , truly good to know.  He also states that it is plainly stated so on their website, which I had previously checked, and repeatedly checked again and could not and am still unable to find (it could be hiding in plain sight, not the first time for me!).  

 I would gently quibble with the assertion that this relatively short (for the US) axle length of 1.002” is the ideal for general replacement, notwithstanding the fact that they may be superb for Tangent’s own trucks, or for other current high end model trucks (the majority of which probably are OK with their own OEM wheel sets). Replacements imply replacements of existing truck wheel sets  of an installed base of model box and passenger cars, the ages of which extend up to a decade or two, or more. 

As some listers may know, I have been interested in ideal wheelset replacement and maximum truck rollability for some years, during which time I have been keenly aware of all the protean variables that affect best choices in each case.  I settled on Reboxx decades ago solely on the available and utility of their incredible variety of 2 mm. axle lengths (that their quality control was extremely high, that they had 0.088” treads and were available with both wheels insulated were welcome but ancillary reasons for choice). 

For my own curiosity, I have kept records of what I have used over the years, using a serendipitously-even-60 currently-saved Reboxx packaging cards to inform and plot continued usage (720 wheel sets by my count). The choices were all made by measurement on a Rolltester, results attenuated subjectively to minimum axle end-play (i.e., a given truck with too-short axles might precipitously roll off a dead-level surface just by looking at it, but nosing and wobbling side to side when doing so sufficient to presage common routine coupling and height alignment problems, not at all looking good in the process!).  I have not included all the IM, Kadee, and Branchline wheel sets also installed additionally).  

Probably the most ubiquitous trucks used in the RPM freight car modeling community are the Accurail “Bettendorf".  Their consistent and reliable maximum rollability/minimum end play axle length choices have varied slightly among molding numbers 1-4, the most common being 1.010”, with 1.025” occasionally.  Their superb Andrews trucks benefit consistently with 1.025” axles.  

As might be expected there is a rough bell shaped curve of usage with axle lengths of l.015” and 1.020”  at the apex with 1.010” and 1.025” on steep downslopes.   There are slightly more 1.030” axles than 1.005”, and almost no 1.000”.  With European and a variety of brass trucks, 0.990” and below to 0.050” have considerable utility, especially the European standard of 0.970”.   I still have in hand a broad Reboxx inventory, and a cursory inspection this morning shows that my packs of 1.000” axles have barely been dipped into. 

Tim O’C opines that trucks roll differently under load than simply light on-test.  Only to a very limited degree, I have found this to be true (I fashioned a lump of lead to mount on a single truck to roughly replicate a half-NMRA weight).  Some dramatically increased rollability under load, notable the old Lindbergs; while only a few others really bogged down.  The overwhelming number demonstrated not a scintilla of difference. Lubrication was only a rare help (confirming once again the late Linn Westcott’s  good advice of many decades ago).

Dave Parker reports that the IM website currently records axle length for its wheels, which it indeed does.  Parker reports a length of 1.060” (WOW!). while the website itself reports 1.006”, consonant with my own measurements, and a definite change from their long held standard axle length of 1.012”.  This de facto chang coincided with a reported change in China contractors, but was not publicly reported until Brian Leppart rung the bell. 

I think that one can judge from this recorded data what axle lengths will best suit her/his fleet, but if only one mass market length was to be chosen, the most bang for the buck would be wheel sets with axle lengths in the 1.010”-1.015” range, with extension to 1.020” as well.

BTW, my recorded bell shaped curve of my actual range of useful  axle lengths reportedly has closely tracked Reboxx’s own sales spread. 

Respectfully,

Denny
  
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento, CA 95864



Re: Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi Bob, Garth, and List members,
 
Notice in the first image linked below (image number 7385), that there is both a derail and a chock or barrier of some sort to prevent the boxcar from rolling and fouling the main line.
 
Claus Schlund
 
 
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, August 05, 2019 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Bob,

The "covered structure" is likely a dump trestle for domestic heating coal, something a lot of lumber dealers also sold. I recently photographed a similar uncovered structure at the Montpelier mansion near Orange, Virginia. The coal trestle is still there with its rails intact (and also a private freight shed). Because the spur was privately owned, they track was left intact when the Southern Railroad removed the switch many years ago.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/5/19 4:04 PM, Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io wrote:

Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705

Old but undated photo:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7385.jpg

The industry on the spur is interesting:

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7383.jpg

http://lists.railfan.net/erielackphoto.cgi?erielack-08-03-19/X7382.jpg

Perhaps a construction supplies business? I also see railroad ties along with lumber and pipe. The spur leads into a covered structure, purpose unknown.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Re: Metal Wheels

Dennis Storzek
 

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 01:33 PM, Denny Anspach wrote:
Probably the most ubiquitous trucks used in the RPM freight car modeling community are the Accurail “Bettendorf".  Their consistent and reliable maximum rollability/minimum end play axle length choices have varied slightly among molding numbers 1-4, the most common being 1.010”, with 1.025” occasionally.  Their superb Andrews trucks benefit consistently with 1.025” axles.  
 
Doc,
I've been finding this whole discussion amusing. The move to shorter axle lengths isn't because of "CAD design" whatever that is, but simply the result of paying attention to the actual prototype dimensions. When Athearn tooled their plastic trucks decades ago, they adopted the 1.035" axle length because that was NMRA recommended practice, and the overall width of the truck came out to whatever it came out to. Red Caboose did something similar years later when they made a truck with the full profile of the journal boxes on the back of the sideframe... only problem was that forced the overall width of the truck to be overly wide, to the point that the journals stick out from under older prototype cars.

When I designed the Accurail truck mold, close to thirty years ago now, I tried to keep the overall width of the trucks to scale... and had all sorts of complaints that the common replacement wheels of the day wouldn't fit, so I jumped through some hoops to squeeze a few more thousandths of depth into the scale size journal boxes. Now I'm seeing  a general trend toward an axle length that would have fit the original design well. I'm sure this is driven by the desire to make the trucks scale width, and that is good, but the width of the trucks is one of those things that NOBODY was thinking of in years past.

Dennis Storzek

Re: Metal Wheels

Tom Madden
 

On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 02:33 PM, Denny Anspach wrote:
David Lehlbach reports that Tangent's HO high quality replacement wheel sets have an axle length of 1.002” , truly good to know.  He also states that it is plainly stated so on their website, which I had previously checked, and repeatedly checked again and could not and am still unable to find (it could be hiding in plain sight, not the first time for me!).  
 
The page that David's link leads to https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/product-category/wheelsets/
doesn't show the axle length. But if you click on any of the wheelset products at the bottom of the page, then you'll get to pages that show axle length.

Tom Madden

Re: Metal Wheels

Denny Anspach
 

David Lehlbach reports that Tangent's HO high quality replacement wheel sets have an axle length of 1.002” , truly good to know.  He also states that it is plainly stated so on their website, which I had previously checked, and repeatedly checked again and could not and am still unable to find (it could be hiding in plain sight, not the first time for me!).  

 I would gently quibble with the assertion that this relatively short (for the US) axle length of 1.002” is the ideal for general replacement, notwithstanding the fact that they may be superb for Tangent’s own trucks, or for other current high end model trucks (the majority of which probably are OK with their own OEM wheel sets). Replacements imply replacements of existing truck wheel sets  of an installed base of model box and passenger cars, the ages of which extend up to a decade or two, or more. 

As some listers may know, I have been interested in ideal wheelset replacement and maximum truck rollability for some years, during which time I have been keenly aware of all the protean variables that affect best choices in each case.  I settled on Reboxx decades ago solely on the available and utility of their incredible variety of 2 mm. axle lengths (that their quality control was extremely high, that they had 0.088” treads and were available with both wheels insulated were welcome but ancillary reasons for choice). 

For my own curiosity, I have kept records of what I have used over the years, using a serendipitously-even-60 currently-saved Reboxx packaging cards to inform and plot continued usage (720 wheel sets by my count). The choices were all made by measurement on a Rolltester, results attenuated subjectively to minimum axle end-play (i.e., a given truck with too-short axles might precipitously roll off a dead-level surface just by looking at it, but nosing and wobbling side to side when doing so sufficient to presage common routine coupling and height alignment problems, not at all looking good in the process!).  I have not included all the IM, Kadee, and Branchline wheel sets also installed additionally).  

Probably the most ubiquitous trucks used in the RPM freight car modeling community are the Accurail “Bettendorf".  Their consistent and reliable maximum rollability/minimum end play axle length choices have varied slightly among molding numbers 1-4, the most common being 1.010”, with 1.025” occasionally.  Their superb Andrews trucks benefit consistently with 1.025” axles.  

As might be expected there is a rough bell shaped curve of usage with axle lengths of l.015” and 1.020”  at the apex with 1.010” and 1.025” on steep downslopes.   There are slightly more 1.030” axles than 1.005”, and almost no 1.000”.  With European and a variety of brass trucks, 0.990” and below to 0.050” have considerable utility, especially the European standard of 0.970”.   I still have in hand a broad Reboxx inventory, and a cursory inspection this morning shows that my packs of 1.000” axles have barely been dipped into. 

Tim O’C opines that trucks roll differently under load than simply light on-test.  Only to a very limited degree, I have found this to be true (I fashioned a lump of lead to mount on a single truck to roughly replicate a half-NMRA weight).  Some dramatically increased rollability under load, notable the old Lindbergs; while only a few others really bogged down.  The overwhelming number demonstrated not a scintilla of difference. Lubrication was only a rare help (confirming once again the late Linn Westcott’s  good advice of many decades ago).

Dave Parker reports that the IM website currently records axle length for its wheels, which it indeed does.  Parker reports a length of 1.060” (WOW!). while the website itself reports 1.006”, consonant with my own measurements, and a definite change from their long held standard axle length of 1.012”.  This de facto chang coincided with a reported change in China contractors, but was not publicly reported until Brian Leppart rung the bell. 

I think that one can judge from this recorded data what axle lengths will best suit her/his fleet, but if only one mass market length was to be chosen, the most bang for the buck would be wheel sets with axle lengths in the 1.010”-1.015” range, with extension to 1.020” as well.

BTW, my recorded bell shaped curve of my actual range of useful  axle lengths reportedly has closely tracked Reboxx’s own sales spread. 

Respectfully,

Denny
  
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento, CA 95864



Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments

np328
 

   The Northern Pacific fitted up 28 prior fully refrigerated cars as half reefer/half dry lading (merchandise).  Then in 1951 they converted another 25. The reason given on the 1951 AFE was "They have proven economical in the reduction of ice used and adaptability to the service requirements and it is recommended that 25 additional cars be fitted up." That is 53 cars and to me, that is notable. In 1953, they added more cars. So at least on my railroad, in my 1953 timeframe, LCL traffic is a going thing. I am working to get data and plans about these cars together and in a manner such as to recreate these cars as a model.  

    Add to this, that the Northern Pacific had the Northern Pacific Transport Co, serving as the last step to many companies dock for delivery. A name not unfamiliar to many on this list, Richard Yaremko  has written in my historical societies rag about those operations should someone be moved to read about that further. In that, we here seem to suffer from a vision when trucks are mentioned - in a win/loose manner. Many of our railroads here had some sort of trucking operations or contractual agreements established (well prior to the end of this lists 1960 cut off) that served both the railroads interests and the shippers. And that helped keep LCL alive through this lists time frame. 

   Freight Forwarders are mentioned above. Here is an undiscovered, unwritten source of railroad traffic that is well in need of being noticed. I have researched on and off for years about this trying to get together a critical mass suitable to be presented at CCB or Chicagoland. Acme was one name and there were others. Often (on my road) they had floor space rented in the freight depot in larger locations. That is two industries in one building, and a chance for operationally more switching. Freight forwarder traffic was hot as railroad traffic and I have letters from high up tracking the movements of these cars and fiery telegrams when a car connection was missed. Instructions on manifesting train make up have freight forwarder cars in the top priority of four or five commodities. This was high revenue traffic. And any railroads empty car was fair game to be used.  

LCL at least for me and my railroad is alive and well in 53, and looks to have continued that way for some time afterward.      Jim Dick - St. Paul 

      One thing I do need to add about trucking way back.  My father was one of those GI's who after WWII drove a truck (for a trucking company) before using his GI benefits to also go to further formal education. He mentioned that trucks were lucky to make 100 mile turn arounds in a full 12 hour day. He drove a truck from Milwaukee to Chicago, and then if everything went right, might drive one back, within 12 hours.  Ninety some miles down, ninety some back in twelve hours.  Much different than today. 
       Reading about the Yakima Valley fruit operations in Washington state, the railroads were concerned (in the 50s) about truckers who would bring a load of merchandise east out of Seattle/Tacoma into central Washington state then solicit their services to take a trailer load of fruit back. Competition was on price, not time as shipment by truck was about the same timeframe as railroad reefers took.
       That the interstates changed things, I do believe. However I can recall going through Montana in the 1970s and finding areas where interstates links had yet to be built. The interstate act was signed in 1956, this list times out in 1960. For the majority of us, interstates are of no concern when conversing about LCL.    

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments

Schleigh Mike
 

Hello Dennis & Group!

Down below, Dennis S says the following--
        "The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII."

Respectfully, I must submit, this is simply wrong.  Perhaps you are thinking of some other aspect or detail of the business.  The assigned boxcar on the local 'way' freight was very much a part of the railroad scene through the 1950s.  No doubt it was in decline but it was still there.  I earlier mentioned the E-L and WAG.  The earlier ERIE had a well established freight house in their Hornell facility up until the 1963 time I previously mentioned.  Its function was to gather in, sort, and ship out the LCL parcels that were processed.  Daily, various 'roaming' cars would arrive, be unload and reloaded with routing to take all that 'stuff' in all directions to many destinations.  Scheduled east and west bound through freights daily made arrivals and departures there timed around the schedule of the house work.  Most movements were intended for those daily fast freights.  And too as appropriate, cars were prepared for the departing 'locals' that took the shipments to the on-line stations for local delivery.  Every station with an agent would deal with the unloading and ultimate local delivery in their respective locals.  Of course, the reverse would occur for outbound shipments.  With the WAG after 1956 and before that, the B&O, shipments on or off the connection from Galeton would be done by cars partially loaded as LCL cars being interchanged.  The WAG and B&O had on-line cars that would be spotted with each arriving train and the previous car pulled with any freight the agent had taken for shipment.  A number of their larger towns received these 'spotted' cars.

Back on the ERIE and early E-L, the Hornell operation was coordinated with the expedited shipments coming out of New York City.  There many small manufacturing businesses depended on such package shipping service and the ERIE used a freight forwarding company coordinating this work clear out to Chicago.  This business was well documented in recent issues of the ELRRHS's publication, "The Diamond."  This was not a singular railroad operation.  All along the line LCL cars would be handed off to connecting railroads and forwarded.  Other RRs participated as necessary and other RRs had their own version of what I have described for the ERIE.

This business, including the quaint local service, was definitely headed into oblivion with WWII concluded but it surely survived another 18 or so years with attempts to resuscitate occurring from time to time in various ways.

I have no knowledge of anything occurring in the years concluding with the1980 Staggers Act but that is, of course, out of our scope.

Regards----Mike Schleigh, Grove City, Penna.

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 11:10:14 AM EDT, Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:


Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment.

But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching.

I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year.

Dennis Storzek

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments

C J Wyatt
 

I think most of the LCL was gone by the end of the 1960s. I started at N&W in 1974 and I do not recall any mention of LCL services.

Also remember, freight forwarders took over some of the business.

Jack Wyatt

On Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 11:10:15 AM EDT, Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:


Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment.

But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching.

I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year.

Dennis Storzek

Re: CV 41000-41499

Marty McGuirk
 

Sorry for not responding to this sooner – I’ve gotten out of the habit of keeping up on email on the weekends and we’ve been dealing with some family medical issues and the normal distractions of summer.
These cars seem to come up on the STMFC on a fairly regular basis. These cars were in service for a very long time – through the late 1960s, but they really didn’t change in appearance all that much over that period of time.
For perhaps more detail than anyone wants on these cars, I’d refer you to the following references:


  1. Ed Beaudette did an article in MR (August 2001 I recall) that included prototype drawings of the CV/GTW 1-1/2 door as built cars (CV's 41000-series).
  2. There were a set of drawings in Mainline Modeler sometime in the late 1980s – in that case they were shown as listed as GTW cars, with no mention of the Central Vermont.
  3. The best reference for these cars is Steve Horsley’s article (which is part of an outstanding ongoing series on CV freight cars) in Volume 24, Issue #4 f the CVRHS “Ambassador.” I’d highly recommend checking that issue out.


Over the years I’ve built a dozen or so more of these – and the various double and single door variants.

All the photos in the links below are on my Central Vermont blog – there are other pictures – if you search for “Freight Cars” you should be able to find more of them. A couple of things to note on the F&C kit:.


  1. I’m never heard the roof is incorrect as Dave mentioned (it’s entirely possible it might be) but if you needed to change it out, the roof on the F&C kit is a separate part. so that should be easy enough However, the way the end door is mounted may mean the Sylvan or some other roof wouldn’t be an easy swap without doing some modification.
  2. The end door casting kind of just hangs above the roofline and doesn’t really capture the beefy look of the prototype on the B end of the car. See this photo of the door end, and compare with the F&C model to see what I mean:
    http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2015/10/wordless-wednesday-107.html
  3. My F&C kits (like me, they’re old!) came with regular ladders – some of the newer F&C kits come with Tichy “Canadian” ladders – neither of these are correct. The CV cars had an integrated sill step (basically the “stirrup” is welded to the ladder styles, not the car side), but the shape of the step on the Tichy ladder isn’t correct.
    See this photo of a 42000 series car showing this: :http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2011/08/central-vermonts-42000-43000-and-44000.html
  4. The cars had wood running boards through most of their service lives. It’s possible a few of them may have received steel running boards, but I’ve never seen any photo evidence of such. I have seen some of these cars with steel brake platforms.


Now we get to the issue with these kits that comes up whenever we discuss them – the trucks. The cars rode on cast steel ARA U-section trucks with spring planks and Barber lateral motion bolsters equipped with six springs per side frame--a style called "increased spring capacity trucks" by several manufacturers.


Search the archives (message 155026) for a post from Brian Leppert @ Tahoe for more detail on the trucks.


https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/message/155026


The MR article states the ECW 9074 70-ton "Bettendorf" trucks are closest. That’s a typo – it should be 9064 (I started editing the article, but had left the MR staff before it was published and a couple of minor, but annoying errors crept into the copy.) I got the reference to those trucks after extensive back and forth with Richard Hendrickson – and though those ECW trucks might look the closest, I’ve never bothered using them, or even trying to find a set since the operating qualities of ECW trucks are marginal at best.


My first item published in a “real” model railroad magazine was a review of this kit (marketed by Steam Shack but produced by Steve Funaro). Just for fun, here’s a photo of that model – warts and all - on Paul Dolkos’ former B&M White Mountain Division


http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2012/12/wordless-wednesday-1.html


Hope this helps, 


Marty McGuirk

Gainesville, VA

On August 6, 2019 at 6:15 AM Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> wrote:

Friends,

Dave is correct. The location is Gorham, not Gore. It's been a long time since I was there, and my memory for place names is getting fuzzy.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 8/6/19 1:47 AM, Dave Parker via Groups.Io wrote:

Brian:

There is  a surviving car -- 41146 -- in Gorham, NH.  If you Google it, you will likely find some photos on the WWW.  If not, I can can send you some of mine.  It does not have  a running board.  I have three photos with 1960-61 reweigh dates, and they all show wooden running boards.

AFAIK, all 500 cars were built with the end doors, as there is nothing to contradict this in the ORERs.

The CSF trucks have three visible springs (probably a 6-spring package), but the cars were only rated at 85,000 lbs, so they were nominally 50-ton trucks.  I have never seen one with any type of replacement truck, and I am not aware of an exact match for the originals in HO

As an aside, the Pressed Steel builder's photo for this series shows a lever-style handbrake, although the later pictures all show Ajax.  I'm afraid I have no idea as to when they were refitted, but Marty McGuirk might.

Last, I cannot reexamine my F&C kit until tomorrow evening, but my notes on it suggest that the Hutchins roof may not be 100% accurate.  The Sylvan (now Yarmouth) Hutchins roof might offer a fix if you feel like doing some bashing.  I have not yet undertaken my copy of the kit, so am not sure exactly what would be involved.

Hope this helps, but feel free to contact me off-list at spottab at yahoo dot com if you would like some better photos than what came with your kit.

Best regards,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA



 


 

Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments

Dennis Storzek
 

Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment.

But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching.

I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year.

Dennis Storzek