Topics

100-ton Andrews trucks in HO


Richard Townsend
 

As long as we're talking about trucks, I am looking for a pair of  HO scale 100-ton Andrews trucks, solid bearing, for a steam-era tank car I am working on. Specifically I am working on a model of OZCX 1 as shown on page 23 of the book "General American Tank Car Journeys." The 11,586-gallon car carried sulfuric acid for the Ozark-Mahoning Company. As far as I am able to tell, there are no HO scale, solid bearing,100-ton Andrews trucks. I would like to be shown to be wrong about this. The closest I have found are Bowser Crown 70-ton Andrews trucks.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


Dave Parker
 

Richard:

I'm not sure your are going to get any closer than the Bowser Crowns.  Except for that photo, I don't offhand recall seeing 100-ton Andrews trucks.  There was no USRA design for them (those topped out at 70 tons), and I haven't seen a drawing or image in any of the CBCs that I have. 

I'm going to guess that the 100-ton version wasn't markedly different than a 70-ton Andrews design.  Wheelbase was probably similar (5-9?), and the ARA spec F journal boxes weren't that much larger than the spec E boxes (6.5 x 12 vs 6 x 11).

I've used the Browser trucks as a stand-in for the actual USRA 70-ton Andrews and it's a pretty good fake. They are clearly more "massive" than the 50-ton Andrews, and I think would convey a similar look on your sulfuric acid car.  Best of luck with that project.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


radiodial868
 

In sorting through all my stash of trucks, I came across a pair Accurail Andrews (#203 w/metal wheels) trucks that are probably 70 ton but are like size gargantuan compared to Tichy and TMW Andrews trucks.
--
-------------------
RJ Dial

Mendocino, CA


Dave Parker
 

The Accurail Andrews is based (quite accurately) on the USRA 70-ton truck, right down to the 5-8 wheelbase.

They usually don't look that large to my eye unless I put them right next to a 40- or 50-ton tuck.  Or (sometimes, I think) on a smallish freight car, like the 55-ton twin hopper.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Dave Parker
 

Ya know, as soon as I sent that, I knew it wasn't quite right.  The Accurail has the longer wheelbase, and I think the larger spring box, but I don't believe the truss members are as heavy-duty as on the 70-t Andrews.  I'm guessing/hoping that Dennis can clarify.  He probably already has, but it's late and I'm too tired to scour the archives (mea culpa).
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Dennis Storzek
 

On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:08 PM, Dave Parker wrote:
Ya know, as soon as I sent that, I knew it wasn't quite right.  The Accurail has the longer wheelbase, and I think the larger spring box, but I don't believe the truss members are as heavy-duty as on the 70-t Andrews.
Dave is correct, the Accurail Andrews truck is the 70 ton version, as our basic truck mold has the scale 5'-8" axle spacing. I just looked through our files this morning but couldn't find any reference to what I used for reference material. It's been twenty one years, I recall whatever it was it was published in one of the CBC's, as there was not much primary material available back then.

What are you comparing the Accurail truck to? It is possible the other model truck is too bulky :-)

Visual size comparison can be a fool's errand, because there was very little dimensional difference between the trucks, other than wheelbase. In the 1922 CBC I'm finding 50 ton trucks with a lower diagonal both 2-5/8" and 2-3/4" wide, and 70 ton trucks with the same 2-3/4" dimension. The difference in the width of the journal boxes is only 1"... that's .011" in HO scale. Any of the model trucks that have more robust looking journals likely have those parts larger than scale, since the NMRA standards make it impossible to accommodate the axle cone and keep the truck anywhere near scale width.

By the way, to get back on topic, nowhere have I found a drawing of a 100 ton capacity Andrews truck. Back in those days 100 ton capacity trucks were all specials, and there were some really outlandish designs.

Dennis Storzek


Dave Parker
 

OK, a few nuggets of (perhaps) interest:

Along the way, we have touched on the 70-ton PRR 2E-F2 Crown and the corresponding USRA Andrews.  This is a comparison that put together a year or two ago:



I don't have any good photos of the USRA truck in service under the 70-ton USRA gondola, but what I have seems to agree with the Buckeye advert.  To my eye, the USRA 70-ton truck is just more "muscular" than the Accurail model, similarities in wheelbase and spring-box dimensions notwithstanding.

This is the original USRA drawing for their standard trucks from the April, 1918, edition of Railway Mechanical Engineer, but also reproduced in the 1919 CBC.  It's not 100% clear to me how one would translate the table of dimensions into a master for a model truck, but that's a task way beyond my skill set.  It also seems to me that the exact shape of the side-frame, especially the top chord, is not being specified, implying some latitude to the individual manufacturers (of which there were several).




Last, I have actually seen one example of a 100-ton "Andrews" truck in both the 1928 and 1931 CBCs.  I agree with Dennis that this is clearly a "special" designed by Buckeye, but the advert doesn't mention a customer for them, nor have I seen one on an actual car.



Hope this helps.

--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


mopacfirst
 

When I looked closer at the 100-ton Buckeye, it's apparent that the cast brackets for the clasp brake hangers are actually separate castings.  They appear to be fastened to the truck frames by the bolts that also retain the journal boxes.  I'll bet that was fun to maintain.

It also appears that the customer's (owning railroad's) name is cast into the truck frame, above and just inboard of the far wheelset.  Other than R.R. at the end of this string of characters, I can't clearly make it out, but I'll wager it is probably a steel road.  I also think that the figures 3-21 might be cast dead center on the truck frame surface, and the pattern number and foundry symbol are above and just inboard of the near wheelset.  And, of course, the 6 1/2 X 12 on the journal boxes, just in case the shop guys might confuse them.

Ron Merrick


Dave Parker
 

Ron: 

I can read the road's initials in my hard-copy of the 1931 CBC:  "PA.A.&Mc.R.R.R."  =  Pittsburgh Allegheny and McKees Rocks Railroad.

Apparently a 25-mi switching line serving the McKee's Rocks area.  In my 1926 ORER, there were 7 locomotives and 125 freight cars (unspecified).
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

This is the original USRA drawing for their standard trucks from the April, 1918, edition of Railway Mechanical Engineer, but also reproduced in the 1919 CBC . . .  It also seems to me that the exact shape of the side-frame, especially the top chord, is not being specified, implying some latitude to the individual manufacturers (of which there were several).

    As Richard Hendrickson frequently observed, each truck maker had an individual tweak on sideframe shape(s) in various areas of the part. That's one reason that the old traditional "Bettendorf" truck designation was so wrong: not only was Bettendorf itself out of the truck business after 1942, but the trucks of each other maker (American Steel Foundries, Buckeye, Columbia, Symington-Gould, National, General Steel, Standard, Scullin et al.) were a little different -- see any Cyc.

Tony Thompson




Dennis Storzek
 

Can't stop beating this horse while it's still twitching :-)

I was curious what my source material for our Andrews truck was, and since the Hathi Trust now has the 1919 CBC on
line, I found the drawing:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006057858&view=1up&seq=1024

Since everyone wants to compare this to the models of PRR Crown trucks, I then went looking for drawings of them in my 1922 CBC (it loads a lot faster). I was then going to do a side-by-side comparison when I noticed something strange; according to the drawings, the Crown trucks have a 2" longer wheelbase, 5'-10" as opposed to 5'-8". Is this the way they were actually built? If so, of course they look more "masculine". Is this correct, or an error in the drawings presented in the CBC?

Dennis Storzek


Dave Parker
 

Dennis:

Yes, my understanding is that the PRR Crown trucks, both 70- and 100-ton, had 5-10 wheelbases.  See attached PRR table, notably the 2E-F2 and 2F-F1 trucks.  (and apologies to whomever's website I swiped this from; I can't recall, so I can't give credit).

It gets weirder with the PRR Crown trucks.  If you are looking at p. 608 of the 1919 Cyc, you'll see two line drawings and one image/photo, all three seemingly for the 70-ton version.  The line drawings both show the 5-10 WB.  But the head scratcher for me is that there are three different spring packages:  6-spring, 5-spring, and what looks like 4-spring in the photo, but I suppose could be a 5-spring without any of the central spring visible.  The photo of a 2E-F2 that I shared yesterday has the obvious 5-spring package.

One of the "joys" of the CBC is their propensity for showing things that manufacturers wanted to sell to prospective customers, without an real clues as to whether they actually did.

Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA


Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 04:02 PM, Dave Parker wrote:
t gets weirder with the PRR Crown trucks.  If you are looking at p. 608 of the 1919 Cyc, you'll see two line drawings and one image/photo, all three seemingly for the 70-ton version.  The line drawings both show the 5-10 WB.  But the head scratcher for me is that there are three different spring packages:  6-spring, 5-spring, and what looks like 4-spring in the photo, but I suppose could be a 5-spring without any of the central spring visible.  The photo of a 2E-F2 that I shared yesterday has the obvious 5-spring package.
Well, I don't know anything about Crown trucks, and don't claim to, but my impression is:

The caption of the 5'-6" wheelbase truck is in error, and it's really a fifty ton truck.
As to the 5'-10" wheelbase trucks, it's one sideframe designed to serve as either a 70 ton truck, or for those 85 and 90 ton coal cars both the PRR and N&W were developing, depending upon the spring arrangement installed.

But that's just a guess on my part. I'll leave it for the Pennsy fans to sort.

Dennis Storzek


Jeff Ford
 

Dave and Richard,

The familiar US Navy Helium tank cars rode on 100-ton trucks.  The earliest versions were Andrews.  There's a decent photo in the FSA/OWI collection at loc.gov. 

https://www.loc.gov/resource/fsa.8d26369/

I'd like to cook up a set in 3D to accurately model the helium cars.  In a pinch though, others have adapted the old MDC heavy duty truck with outside hung brake beams by sawing off the roller bearings and transplanting plain bearing journal boxes.  Apparently the trickiest part is gluing the slippery deleon plastic.

As info,
-Jeff Ford
Sanger, TX


Jeff Ford
 

Autocomplete strikes again: Delrin

-JDF


David
 

The PA&McKR 90-ton Andrews trucks were used under PSCX 1091, a sample battleship gondola built by Pressed Steel Car in 1921 that shows up in the '20s CBCs. This car was leased to Virginian for most of the 1920s. Pittsburgh Allegheny & McKees Rocks ended up with a number of PSC sample cars over the years.

David Thompson


Tony Thompson
 

Jeff Ford wrote:

. . . others have adapted the old MDC heavy duty truck with outside hung brake beams by sawing off the roller bearings and transplanting plain bearing journal boxes.  Apparently the trickiest part is gluing the slippery deleon plastic.

Canopy glue worked for me, as I explained in a blog post.

Tony Thompson