Date   

Re: B&O N25B covered hoppers

rwitt_2000
 

I only have this one cropped from a larger image. Can't read the number so it may not be a N-25b. It appears to have the original brake arrangement.
Attached:
The origins for the N-25 hoppers was the N-13 that had longitudinal hoppers dumping outside the rails.

The attached photo is from Randy Anderson's collection..




Bob Witt


B&O N25B covered hoppers

D. Scott Chatfield
 

Can anyone point me to a picture of the B-end of one of these?  Kitbashing one for a friend.  And those outlets are very odd.


Scott Chatfield


Re: nice image of stock car SLSF 47864

rwitt_2000
 

List members,

A slightly larger image using the below link, at least on my iMac.

http://frisco.org/mainline/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Cattle-Car-47864-date-and-location-unknown.jpg

Bob Witt


Re: ART 12645 and 13657 Reefer Questions

mopacfirst
 

On the color of kick plates:  It depends on the era you're modeling.  In the late steam era, kick plates on wooden ART cars were usually red.  There are a few published color photos that show this.  The kick plate area on steel cars was painted black.

Ron Merrick


ART 12645 and 13657 Reefer Questions

Nelson Moyer
 

I’m finishing up two ART reefers as 12645 and 13657. The photo of 12248 in the ART book, p. 134 appears to have a long sill step extending the full width of the door and suspended from the bottom of the side sill. The step bows down at the center, and it appears to be painted black. The sill steps on the ends of the sides are outside mount type A attached to the side sill through the sheathing. Westerfield instructions state that there were no center side sill steps on cars in this series, and model photos don’t show one. I can’t find any clear photos of other cars in this series to tell whether the center sill step was present or not. Were these unusually long sill steps used on other cars, or is 12248 unique?

 

My second question is about the color of kick plates. The 12000-12999 series cars had yellow sides, including grab irons, grab ladders, and kick plates. The 13000 series cars had either mineral red or black kick plates, but there is contradictory information about which color was actually used. Does anyone know if the kick plates on 13657 would have been mineral red or black?

 

Nelson Moyer


Re: Reboxx 40% off wheel sale

brianleppert@att.net
 

Thanks Ron.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV


Reboxx 40% off wheel sale

dphobbies
 

We are closing out our remaining Reboxx wheel inventory at 40% off MSRP.  Remaining stock is listed on our web store www.desplaineshobbies.com
To reach the list quickly, scroll through the BRANDS list on the left side navigation bar.  If the wheelset you are looking for is not listed, that means it is sold out.

Ron Sebastian
Des Plaines Hobbies


Re: Tichy tank car

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

First, the outage chart and tables were likely needed in a significant number of cases . . .

Thanks, Dave. I appreciate the additional details.

Last, starting some time in the early 1920s (perhaps 1923), the dome volumes of cars fitted with "side dome safety valves" were downgraded for all inflammable commodities.  

      The side-mount safety valves, though ordinarily performing exactly the same as dome-top valves (and both being 5-inch diameter), had the drawback that cargo expanding into the dome would submerge the side-mounts before reaching the top of the dome to interfere with top-mounts. I'm sure that's the reason for this capacity downgrade. And it's known as the reason for preferring top mounts.

Tony Thompson




Re: Tichy tank car

Larry Buell
 

Ed Bommer wrote that a gallon of water contains 16 pints. Not true, it contains 8 pints or 4 quarts.  Also, a gallon of water weighs 8.32 lbs. (I used to work in the oil patch before I went to work for a railroad).

Larry Buell


Re: Tichy tank car

Dave Parker
 

Tony:

First, the outage chart and tables were likely needed in a significant number of cases.  The ICC regs on this, which date to 1918 at least, pertained to all commodities classified as inflammables. The 1923 revisions, which appear to be unchanged in the 1938 and 1949 updates (published in the CFR), include several common commodities.  For example, both gasoline and naptha, when loaded at temperatures up to 65 F, required expansion volumes of 2.4 to 2.8%.  At 75 F and above, the 2% minimum dome size would have been adequate.  When loaded at 55 F, both ethanol and toluene would have required a ~2.8% expansion volume, while methanol and benzene would have needed about 3.2%.  Commodities not classified as inflammable, including kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, etc., could all be carried with a 2% expansion space.

Second, tank cars actually built to the 2% minimum may have been in the minority.  Using the Sinclair fleet of ca 1930 as an example, the GATC 1917 design cars had dome volumes of 2.5% (8000 gal) or 2.3% (10,000gal).  The radial-course Penn Tank Car builds (8000 gal) had 3.2% domes.  The notable exception seems to have been the 10,000-gal ACF Type 21s with their minimalist 210-gal domes, apparently the most common configuration for these cars.  In contrast, the 8000-gal Type 21s most commonly sported 254-gal domes, and the P2000/Walthers Proto models of the Type 21s reflect these norms.

Last, starting some time in the early 1920s (perhaps 1923), the dome volumes of cars fitted with "side dome safety valves" were downgraded for all inflammable commodities.  For example, Sinclair had 6000-gal ACF cars built in in 1918 to Class III the standard but with side-mounted valves.  The 145-gal dome volume was downsized to only 95 gallons (~1.5%) for use with inflammables, so the outage table would have been a necessity for this combination of commodity and car.   There are a number of other examples of cars so footnoted scattered throughout the 1936 and 1955 tariff books.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Re: Tichy tank car

Paul Doggett
 

Ed 

There’s 8 pints in a gallon.
Paul Doggett 
England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 


On 15 Aug 2019, at 02:23, Dave Parker via Groups.Io <spottab@...> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
 BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.
Just to clarify, the 2% requirement dates only to the creation of, and mandatory construction to, the Class III  and IV standards of May, 1917.  Many, perhaps the majority, of Class II cars had domes noticeably smaller than this minimum percentage, and many were used in interchange for decades thereafter.

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity.  Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  Texaco obviously preferred to simplify things, which is why their ACF Type 21 10 kgal cars had 420-gal domes (versus the "standard" ACF build of 210 gallons).

Dave Parker  
Riverside, CA


Re: Tichy tank car

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

Sorry Tony, this is simply not true. 

Not clear which part of my comments you state isn't true. The gallonage on a tank car end is indeed the shell-full gallons. And many commodities were loaded shell-full. I spoke at length at an NMRA convention with a guy who had worked at Procter and Gamble, and that's  what he said.
       I don't dispute the outage tables. No doubt there were commodities for which the 2 percent might not be enough.
       The 1915 report by MCB (I think that's the year) was summarized in Railway Age, and it describes the 2 percent volume issue at length. It was certainly the intent to cover a wide range of commodities, but of course the world of petrochemicals and other products has changed a great deal since then. And perhaps the 2 percent was a compromise to cover most products, and use outage tables for the rest.

Tony Thompson




USRA Tank Car design was Tichy tank car

Steve and Barb Hile
 

It seems a little bit of déjà vu all over again.  Perhaps it is time for a reminder of some of the details of the USRA tank car design.
 
First of all, there was not a single design, but a family of 3 different capacity cars with options for tank construction.  There were four figures published in a variety of sources, including the 1919 Car Builder's Dictionary (can be found on line in the Hathi Trust scans)  One figure details the underframe which would be common for all capacity tanks.  The second says that it shows 7000, 8000 and 10000 gallon cars common features, so there is no tank ID shown.  It lists the truck center dimension as 24'9" and the over striker dimension as 35'9-1/2".  The cylindrical length of the tank is shown as 31'11" (exclusive of the heads.)  The oil dome ID is 52" and the corresponding acid dome ID is 44.
 
The third figure shows that the standard would allow either a 5 radial course upper tank or a three course longitudinal tank.  The Tank ID for 7000 gallons would be 73" while 8000 gallons it would be 77-3/4".  The heads would have the standard 10 foot radius of 1/2" plate, while the tank side sheets were 3/8" thick.
 
The final figure provides the same radial or longitudinal (four course) options with the head and side sheet thickness the same as the smaller tanks.  The tank ID is 86-3/4" and the dome ID is still 52" (probably to reduce variety and promote standardization of parts.  This is the plan that Tichy chose, with the four longitudinal courses.  I have not compared the model dimensions to these plans, but I would imagine that they are pretty close.
 
It has been a common notion amongst serious modelers that there were no actual prototype cars built to these drawings.  However, as I was researching the UTLX book in the last few years, this photo came to light.  http://images.indianahistory.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/P0129/id/1557/rec/14  We did include this photo in the book, even though it probably never became a UTLX car.
 
FTX was the reporting marks of Federal Tank Line, a quasi governmental company set up to find uses for tank cars that had been built for the WWI war effort under USRA control.  It did not appear that these 10000 gallon cars lasted very long in Lincoln Oil service.  When their fleet was purchased by UTLX it consisted of only thirty five 8000 ACF built cars.  In 1925, FTX lists 422 ten thousand gallon tank cars, numbered 10001 - 10422.  It is possible that some or all of them match FTX 10073 in the photo.
 
At least, this puts all the known to me information into a single point.  I hope that it helps.
 
Steve Hile 
 
 


Re: Tichy tank car

Dave Parker
 

Sorry Tony, this is simply not true.  If you dig back into the ARA tank car specs from ca. 1920, you can find the outage tables and chart that gives the needed expansion volume for a given commodity.  With a high enough vapor pressure, and a high enough loading temperature, the required head space could easily reach 3+%, and the fix was to fill the car to less than shell- full.   A specific table for each car design told the shipper how many inches short of full-shell to fill the car for a given % expansion volume.  A simple dip stick presumably facilitated the measurement.  Examples of such tables can be found in the Standard Tank (Car) Companies books "All About Tank Cars" from 1919 and 1921.  The widely circulated 1952 UTLX summary of all of their cars also contains reference to the correct Outage Table Number for each car design and size.

As I tried to explain, Texaco apparently skirted this inconvenience by ordering Class III and IV cars with domes in excess of 3%, and even 4%, of the tank volume.  This makes modeling TCX cars something of challenge if your goal is prototypic accuracy.  None of the models really look right next to the prototypes.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Re: Tichy tank car

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity. 

     This seems an odd story. The MCB report which was the basis for the 2 percent rule had accepted input from many shippers of all kinds, to create a "safe" volume. Perhaps Texaco wasn't shipping high-expansion products before 1917.

Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  

      The widely-used convention was to fill a car "shell full," which meant, just to the very top of the horizontal cylindrical part, easily seen through the manway during filling. The gallonage stenciled on the end of the tank reflected filling to that level.

Tony Thompson




Re: Tichy tank car

Dave Parker
 

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
 BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.
Just to clarify, the 2% requirement dates only to the creation of, and mandatory construction to, the Class III  and IV standards of May, 1917.  Many, perhaps the majority, of Class II cars had domes noticeably smaller than this minimum percentage, and many were used in interchange for decades thereafter.

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity.  Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  Texaco obviously preferred to simplify things, which is why their ACF Type 21 10 kgal cars had 420-gal domes (versus the "standard" ACF build of 210 gallons).

Dave Parker  
Riverside, CA


Re: Tichy tank car

rdgbuff56
 

Having been a volunteer firefighter for 45 years,  a gallon of water always weighed 8.34 pounds not 16.

Francis A. Pehowic,  Jr. 
Sunbury,  Pa.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 6:17:45 PM UTC, Edward <edb8391@...> wrote:


Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.
Calculate the cubic footage of the tank interior as a cylinder. Do not include dome capacity.

100 gallons occupies13.36 cubic feet, with a water weight of 213.76 lbs. 
(1 gallon is 1.336 cubic feet. A gallon of water has 16 pints weighing a pound each, if you are seeking weight).

Divide the total volume of the tank by 13.36 to get the gallonage in 100's.
Round this down to the nearest gross thousands to find a nominal gallon capacity.
These are often stated as 5,000, 6,000, 8,000,10,000 12,000 etc. but could vary by being slightly larger as well.

For water weight capacity in pounds of each nominal size tank, multiply by 16.
I think water weight for fluid loads was generally used in weight capacity calculations.
These determined journal / bearing  sizes for the trucks used under a tank car. 

Other fluids may vary by weight, being lighter or heavier from their chemical composition.
A gallon of gasoline weighs less than a gallon of water, for example.
A gallon of sulfuric acid is heavier.

Ed Bommer 


Re: Tichy tank car

Edward
 

Yep, Doug!
You got me there. I was going too fast in my post. 
Many thanks for the correction.
Ed Bommer 


Re: Tichy tank car

Douglas Harding
 

Ed you need to adjust your math. There are 8 pints in a gallon at 1 lb per pint. There are 16 cups in a gallon at ½ lb per cup. Meaning a gallon of water weighs 8 lbs. Thus a 100 gallons would weigh 800lbs.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Edward
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:18 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car

 

Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.
Calculate the cubic footage of the tank interior as a cylinder. Do not include dome capacity.

100 gallons occupies13.36 cubic feet, with a water weight of 213.76 lbs. 
(1 gallon is 1.336 cubic feet. A gallon of water has 16 pints weighing a pound each, if you are seeking weight).

Divide the total volume of the tank by 13.36 to get the gallonage in 100's.
Round this down to the nearest gross thousands to find a nominal gallon capacity.
These are often stated as 5,000, 6,000, 8,000,10,000 12,000 etc. but could vary by being slightly larger as well.

For water weight capacity in pounds of each nominal size tank, multiply by 16.
I think water weight for fluid loads was generally used in weight capacity calculations.
These determined journal / bearing  sizes for the trucks used under a tank car. 

Other fluids may vary by weight, being lighter or heavier from their chemical composition.
A gallon of gasoline weighs less than a gallon of water, for example.
A gallon of sulfuric acid is heavier.

Ed Bommer 


Re: Tichy tank car

Tony Thompson
 

Ed Bommer wrote:

Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.

     Thee are complications with the domed heads and other issues. I explored ALL of that and came up with an excellent approximation to account for the details. It's at this link if you're interested:


And as Richard Townsend observed, I calculated way back in 2012 that the Tichy tank volume is 9840 gallons.
     BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.

Tony Thompson
Berkeley, CA


14861 - 14880 of 181139