"Brian J Carlson asked:

Guys I was looking through Train Shed Cyclopedia 77 "Freight Car
Construction Details, Underframes and Brakes from the 1943 CBC."
and on page 947 there is a diagram of a Westinghouse AB-8 automatic
empty and load brake equipment. I do not think I have ever seen this
equipment on a car before. What roads and types of cars used this
arrangement? Are there pictures anywhere?

Brian,

Any freight car whose CAPY was more than three times its LT WT was "required" to have empty/load brakes, where a valve lowered the braking effort when the car was empty to help prevent flat wheels.

Note I said CAPY instead of LD LMT (load limit). This allowed roads like the N&W to stencil some of their hoppers with CAPYs well below the LD LMTs (110000 CAPY vs 137500 LD LMT comes to mind on some 55-ton twins whose LT WTs were in the 38000 range), and thus not have to install empty/load brake valve, which they considered a bother.

Scott C

On Oct 5, 2005, at 11:04 AM, Gerard J Fitzgerald wrote:

...My questions concern
whether these types of cars were unique to just the Sante Fe? If not who else
transported carbon dioxide in this manner during the period between say 1930
and 1950? More information about the Sante Fe operations would be of interest
too especially pertaining to the movement of these cars to other industries or
off line to other parts of the country.

Gerald, I'm not aware of any other railroads that owned dry ice cars, but there were several private owners: Mathieson, Liquid Carbonic Corp., Merchants Despatch (DCIX), and perhaps others that don't come readily to mind. All three had cars custom-built for this service, not converted from conventional reefers as in the case of the Santa Fe Rr-20 class. I know very little about dry ice traffic on the Santa Fe and can't say how far or how often their cars went off-line, but I do know that the travelled from Witt, NM to Southern Calif. on a more or less regular basis.

Richard Hendrickson

I agree with you Marty, but I sure do miss the Rosemont MRIA show
when it coincided with the Naperville show... that was a lot of fun and
it seemed like -everyone- was there. And not just model rr vendors
either.

Tim O'Connor

Whereas, JP's coupler (at least his BIG one) had a working
prototypical pin, that could be made to work with uncoupling
levers! No more magnets or sticks -- just uncouple them like
the real thing. :-)

There's an interesting correlation between this discussion and the
situation some N scalers see with Atlas code 55 track.

Micro-Trains, a defacto "standard" in N scale, has extra deep
flanges that will not operate on Atlas track (which is, in many ways,
the best looking N scale track on the market today) since the flanges
hit the spike heads. In this case, the Atlas track meets the NMRA's
standards, M-T wheels exceed them -- but the realities of the market
place have caused lots of a hard feelings and nasty comments on both
the "pizza cutter" and "low profile (defending code 55 track) sides
of the coin.

So we have an example of a major manufacturer, Atlas, deciding to
work within the standards even if they know many customers will
object to it.

As previously mentioned, the NMRA standards and RPs are designed to
permit the continued use of older technology. Coupler boxes are a
prime example. The Kadee #5 box doesn't need to be the size it is, it
is that size to accommodate an NMRA Standard or RP (I don't recall
which) that itself was intended to satisfy all comers. Realistically
we cannot expect all manufacturers to retool their cars to accept
scale width coupler pockets -- the limitations are economic, not
mechanical. So, we're stuck with a new breed of scale sized couplers
that are sitting inside an enormously oversized box.

I'm sure however, the NMRA is all over this -- actively engaging its
authority and influence over all manufacturers and
outlining "upgraded and updated" standards that reflect the state of
the hobby today. I mean, that's what the organization did when Al
Kalmbach, Bruce Walthers, and others founded it, right? Has something
changed????

Marty McGuirk (who never saw a single photo showing Al Kalmbach,
Gordy Odegard et al in a vest)

For whatever it's worth, my own current preference is to use Kadee no. 78 couplers wherever I can, especially on resin kits, and Kadee no. 58 couplers when I have to accept a wide no. 5-size box. Since Kadee has improved its scale-size couplers by eliminating the obvious gap between the knuckle and the coupler head, I don't feel this is giving up very much in appearance.

Sergent couplers are interesting, but like others here I'd like to see them proven on an operating layout. There's also the fact that they require reaching into the scene to uncouple, which is avoidable with Kadee couplers and magnetic uncouplers. I know "everybody" is used to reaching in to uncouple, but I'd like to not be used to it. And if I may stray off freight cars for a moment, I don't see how Sergent couplers can be uncoupled under the diaphragms of close-coupled passenger cars.

Again like others, I look forward to the "perfect" HO coupler that J.P. Barger described in his presentation at Cocoa Beach a couple years ago. Trouble is, we're still looking forward to it, whereas every once in a while I can manage to finish a car.

So long,

Andy


Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
Phone: 262-796-8776, ex. 461
Fax: 262-796-1142
www.modelrailroader.com

I have posted information on freight deliveries to Rochester IN in
January of 1954. This information is taken from Delivery
Advices/Cashier's Memoradum.

Any feed back or discussion of this information would be welcome.

Now that I don't have to go to an NMRA national convention for "work" I
find I have no interest in going and, frankly, don't miss them.

Naperville, and focused historical society conventions, have more than
made up for the NMRA nationals for me -- most telling was the number of
folks who ask "You going to Naperville?". I don't think anyone has
asked me if I'm going to an NMRA convention.

On the other hand I hope Martin resists notions of "adding more for
attendees" -- which may get dangerously close to "non-prototype
clinics, or free-lanced models -- even some of my own, on display.

<snip>Naperville will be over 400 this year. <snip>
That's big enough -- it doesn't need to get more crowded!

Funny thing, I don't really mind the better NMRA regionals -- I don't
go out of my way to attend them, but don't mind going. But spending the
better part of the price of a brass engine to attend a week long
convention and then go to a train show where it's a lot of excitement
over the newest diesel that makes noise, spits smoke etc . . .

no thanks, BTDT

Marty McGuirk

Denny, I was somewhat appalled when JP said at Cocoa Beach that
he was going to produce his beautiful scale couplers with Kadee #5
style shanks! I thought to myself "What's the point?" -- but JP is a
businessman after all, and he knows that us purists are only the
tippiest tip of the HO iceberg.

Denny-
The greater market is for the Kadee #5 box. I would imagine that the sales of the Sargeant coupler in the gross box might support tooling a scale draft gear and coupler head, but the vast majority of sales are going to be in the Kadee #5 box..... many operators just want reliable couplers to put into their existing equipment and don't want to deal with hacking away the existing draft gear to install scale sized boxes.
Yes, it would have been better if Kadee and the NMRA had established something more to scale but that doesn't change the reality of the marketplace that we have to deal with today.
Charlie Vlk

Bob Webber cautions-

Don't forget the biffy parade.

Bob, you are showing your age!

Denny


--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

Gregg,

Great info. I lived on the other end of that shipment. I t was a 22 mile trip for the loads to go from the mill to the boat in Botwood Newfoundland Canada.

Andrew

Mike and list,

In the mid-1960's the "Baltimore Sun" (A. S. Abell Co.) received newsprint from Newfoundland that arrived Baltimore by vessel and was loaded at the docks into PRR-furnished 40 foot boxcars for a crosstown haul to the printing plant. The cars moved about eight miles by rail for a movement that was less than a mile as the crow flies. There are still specialized moves this short but that's beyond the purview of this list.

Gregg Mahlkov

This nagging problem of excessive draft gear box size has plagued the
HO hobby far too long, and IMHO, if we are to perceive ourselves
correctly as "serious modelers", our admitted long toleration and
silence on this issue has only prolonged the problem :-[. Only two
current coupler systems are "scale" in both box and coupler size, the
Accumate Proto , and the Kadee #78. That both join the Kadee #4 as
being the only HO couplers on the market that are actually engineered
to truly function integrally with their respective boxes further
sets them apart. That Sergeant has elected to make their beautiful
new coupler to only fit the large boxes is a non-starter for me- much
like plastering a Rolls-Royce front end on a Yugo (I am being kind).

The sooner we work toward a new standard scale sized draft gear box
standard, the better.

Friends, the following is a message that I posted to the Layout
Construction list some months ago, and it may be of some interest to
those following this thread-

Denny

_______________________________________________________

Prior to about 1950, most HO couplers were dummies of varying
dimensions. Varney's plastics were the most popular, but just about
every kit manufacturer had their own cast-lead versions, all of which
could be made to fit each other as long as the modeler was handy with
a file. Of course, with dummy couplers, the cars had to be lifted off
the track to couple/uncouple and everyone longed for something
"automatic".

Fulfilling this desire was the other popular coupler, the Mantua
"automatic"- a far more precision device, but totally without any
scale prototype pretensions. Walthers also had an automatic coupler
of sorts (a cast lead blob with a wire keeper on the side), which
never had any discernible acceptance. Other even lesser attempts at
automatic couplers surfaced every once in awhile, even in the late
thirties (if memory serves). Virtually none survived.

Kadee brought their first coupler out about 1951 or 2, if I recall.
It looked and functioned much as the current product, but had a
straight pin to mechanically open the jaw with a ramp. It
automatically centered, and for the first time had "slack". The jaw
also had a more angular, less-well-scaled shape. It came with an
integrally-engineered metal draft gear box, not scale, but
significantly narrower than the current "standard" boxes (similar to,
if not entirely identical to the current MK 4). Besides its obvious
advantages of a more scale appearance (as compared to the popular
Mantua), its superior ease and forgivibility in casual coupling, and
(importantly) its coupling compatibility with the large established
base of dummy couplers, it only gained only a minimal hold in the
market place ecause of its relative high price.

In the meantime, other "scale" cast metal automatic couplers were
developed by Devore and MDC, which (if they have not fallen apart)
even today are good looking enough that they remain functional,
compatible (to present Kadees), and acceptable on a lot of the
historical rolling stock that I remain partial to. However, as
functioning automatics, these couplers never worked in any acceptable
way, and they did not last long.

Dummy couplers continued to predominate during the '50s. On a famous
large model railroad club (still existing) that I was active in
during the latter '50s into the '60s, dummy couplers remained the
standard.

When Athearn first came out with their earthshaking (actually good
word, even in our small modeling universe) moulded plastic passenger
(under Globe name) and freight cars in about 1957 or 8 (I am away
from my sources to fact check!), the couplers provided by Athearn
were pot metal ring-shank dummies. Although the passenger cars had no
draft gear boxes, the freight cars did. The size was small enough to
allow trucks to swivel, and large enough to allow coupler swing so
that the cars could easily make right angle turns. The box depth was
variable, depending upon how close the fit of the box cover. Utility,
not precision nor scale,was the object. Very probably, some reference
was made to the "NMRA draft gear box", a box designed to handle a
wide variety of couplers (including Mantua).( These boxes were
subsequently manufactured and sold by Kemtron and PFM, and perhaps
others, but never enjoyed any market penetration).

Well, the roaring success of the Athearn cars in the HO modeling
market at the time is hard to exaggerate, and when Kadee brought on
to the market for the first time its own revolutionary product- the
magnetic upgrade of its existing mechanical couplers, it very smartly
made its first magnetic coupler designed without a draft gear box
(MK#5) to drop fit into the Athearn cars. Rapidly, it became its more
popular product (to this day).

The notorious X2F couplers enter in here as well, inasmuch as by
serendipity or design, they too were designed to drop fit into the
Athearn boxes. Because these were cheap (that is, cheap), and had the
perceived imprimatur of the NMRA , manufacturers almost overnight
were now including these couplers (and the boxes to fit them) in
their kits, and the "Athearn box" became the industry-wide de facto
standard (to this day).

Memories are short, and it is very easy to forget that the X2F , not
Kadee, then ruled the roost in the HO market until the Kadee patents
ran out, then freeing this type of coupler to become a commodity
(i.e. cheap). At that point, the X2F disappeared like the snow in the
mid-day sun. Before that time it is well to recall that it really was
only a minority of modelers willing over the years to spend the money
to adopt Kadees as their standard.

Kadee survived and prospered because it put out a persistently-high
quality product that "looked scale" , functioned reliably and easily
under a wide variety of conditions, and for a key segment of the
modeling population the couplers were entirely compatible with their
already-established base of dummy couplers. It was this core of
modelers that kept the product alive, and it is this unbroken line of
coupler selection and compatibility from the '30s that new
manufacturers have to contend with today.


--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

Andy Sperandeo wrote:

For whatever it's worth, my own current preference is to use Kadee no. 78 couplers wherever I can, especially on resin kits, and Kadee no. 58 couplers when I have to accept a wide no. 5-size box. Since Kadee has improved its scale-size couplers by eliminating the obvious gap between the knuckle and the coupler head, I don't feel this is giving up very much in appearance.

Andy,

I have # 58 couplers without "The Gap", but have the # 78 couplers too been changed to the new design without gap?

Andreas Kuehnpast

I've been a subscriber to this list for a while and I am well aware of Tony's tendencies.<G>. I was trying to pull everyone's leg a little by creating a circular logic problem (find the left side by facing the B end, find the B end by facing the left side, etc.).

But in response to Tony's 50% comment, I think it was Yogi Berra who said something to the effect of if you have a 50-50 chance of being right, 90% of the time you'll pick the wrong one.<g>

"wmcclark1980" <walterclark@earthlink.net> wrote:

--
Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


__________________________________________________________________
Switch to Netscape Internet Service.
As low as $9.95 a month -- Sign up today at http://isp.netscape.com/register

Netscape. Just the Net You Need.

New! Netscape Toolbar for Internet Explorer
Search from anywhere on the Web and block those annoying pop-ups.
Download now at http://channels.netscape.com/ns/search/install.jsp

There is a short description in the product review section of the new issue of
"The Warbonnet" (Third Quarter-2005 [Vol 12, No. 2]) detailing Sunshine's Sante
Fe dry ice reefers. This very short, but informative review, talks about three
car designs and the hauling of carbon dioxide from a natural source near Witt,
New Mexico to Spencer Chemical in Pittsburgh, Kansas. My questions concern
whether these types of cars were unique to just the Sante Fe? If not who else
transported carbon dioxide in this manner during the period between say 1930
and 1950? More information about the Sante Fe operations would be of interest
too especially pertaining to the movement of these cars to other industries or
off line to other parts of the country.

I will note I am not a Sante Fe modeler but pick up the magazine at my local
hobby shop on occasion and I am always very impressed by both the articles and
modeling.

Gerard

Dr. Gerard J. Fitzgerald
Postdoctoral Fellow, Center for Bioethics
University of Pennsylvania

Bill, do you have (or can easily move) this data in a spreadsheet? It would
make counts a lot easier and I could run the cars against my ORER database
and for those that match provide in return all the germaine series
dimensional data.

Dave Nelson

Naperville will be over 400 this year. NMRA national conventions still

draw considerably more than that, of course, but their attendance
declines steadily, along with NMRA membership as a whole<
Bad memory but I think the SFRH&MS draws somewhere between 300 to 500.
All depends where the convention is held.


Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

The B&M/ST moved milled flour from New England Milling in Ayer MA
to Prince Spaghetti in Lowell MA, about 20 miles or less. I think this
still exists although the pasta factory has changed hands. After the
NKP waybill info I wonder if this was on special 2-step waybills too.

Tim O.