1) Using a scale ruler and photos, the rivet heads on the HL hoppers
come out at 1.68 inches in diameter. Are they as large as 1-1/2
inches, or am I way off on my measurements?

2) Z-bar channels on the car ends measures out to 6 inches wide
overall, 3-1/4 inches width for the surface furthest from the car. Do
these seem reasonable measurements?

3) Grab irons measure out to 3/4 inches wide. Too narrow?

4) The angle iron mounted at the cars' four corners, what thickness
might these be? 1/4 inch? 3/8 inch?

Thanks much,

Brian Chapman
Cedar Rapids, Iowa


---

Brian Chapman writes:

1) Using a scale ruler and photos, the rivet heads on the HL hoppers
come out at 1.68 inches in diameter. Are they as large as 1-1/2
inches, or am I way off on my measurements?

Brian, since you, in another message refer to a Cyc drawing that you
apparently don't have access to, I assume you are measuring a model. If this
be the Stewart car, can you tell us the distance from the bottom of the side
at midpoint of the car and the top of the side? I'd also like to know the
distance from track to the top of the side. Thanks.

Mike Brock

Brian, since you, in another message refer to a Cyc drawing that you

apparently don't have access to, I assume you are measuring a model.
If this be the Stewart car, can you tell us the distance from the
bottom of the side at midpoint of the car and the top of the side?
I'd also like to know the distance from track to the top of the side.
Thanks. Mike Brock <

Mike, I wish I could oblige. I found a drawing online of an HL car
(N&W 22000, straight not fishbelly side sill) from a book by Davis.
Just searched for it and was unable to find the Web site. Perhaps
someone else will know.

I imported the scan into AutoCAD software and spent an hour or two
today resizing the scan, doing my best to ensure dimensional
accuracy, based upon the drawing's printed dimensions as well as the
discussion on this list over the past few days.

N&W HL 22000 2-bay hopper, from the drawing:

IL 30'-10 (inside upper peaked end to inside upper peaked end)
OL 32'-9 (striker face to striker face)
HT 12'-3 (top of rail to top of peaked end)
WD 9'-10 (outside corner post to outside corner post; width is 5-6
inches wider if eaves are included)

Based on the above drawing dimensions, and after sizing the drawing
in CAD to match them, the car measures:

11'-0 1/2 from rail top to top of car side
8'-3 from bottom of car side to top of car side

This is on target, is it not?

When finished with the drawing in a few days, I'll have it printed on
clear high resolution film and then proceed to etching. I sure could
use a scanned copy of the 1940 cyc drawing and dimensions, if anyone
would care to send them. Also, I'll look for Train Shed #5.

Mike, I'm not sure if you're after just the Stewart model dimensions,
the prototype measurements, or both. Hope this helps some.

Brian Chapman


---

Brian Chapman asks: N&W HL hopper questions, such as:

1) Using a scale ruler and photos, the rivet heads on the HL hoppers
come out at 1.68 inches in diameter. Are they as large as 1-1/2
inches, or am I way off on my measurements?

According to my Steel Manual, a 1.625" dia head on a rivet is exactly spec
for a 1" rivet. The formula is 1.5D + .125", where D = diameter of the
rivet.

2) Z-bar channels on the car ends measures out to 6 inches wide
overall, 3-1/4 inches width for the surface furthest from the car. Do
these seem reasonable measurements?

That's about what I get, without photocopying the drawing to scale. Seems a
pretty good approximation. I might favor 5.75". But I'd get it photocopied
up to about 1" scale before I made any hard decisions.

3) Grab irons measure out to 3/4 inches wide. Too narrow?

Nope. On the button.

4) The angle iron mounted at the cars' four corners, what thickness
might these be? 1/4 inch? 3/8 inch?

Mmmm-hmmm. In there somewhere. The flange is drawn a lot like the 1/4" pl
that is the slope sheet, but at this scale it's hard to tell. I'd guess
that it'd be a little heavier than the plate, so probably 5/16" or 3/8".
Kind of surprising it's not called out since most of the other shapes are.


SGL

Brian Chapman writes:

I imported the scan into AutoCAD software and spent an hour or two
today resizing the scan, doing my best to ensure dimensional
accuracy, based upon the drawing's printed dimensions as well as the
discussion on this list over the past few days.

Just what I would do.

I sure could
use a scanned copy of the 1940 cyc drawing and dimensions, if anyone
would care to send them. Also, I'll look for Train Shed #5.

I can probably do that (TS5 scan, that is) tomorrow.

SGL

Schuyler,

1) Using a scale ruler and photos, the rivet heads on the HL

hoppers come out at 1.68 inches in diameter. <<

According to my Steel Manual, a 1.625" dia head on a rivet is

exactly spec for a 1" rivet. <

I used a dead-on photo of an HL car end to measure from. Gee, the
accuracy is much better than I would have thought.

2) Z-bar channels on the car ends measures out to 6 inches wide

overall, 3-1/4 inches width for the surface furthest from the car. <<

That's about what I get, without photocopying the drawing to scale.

Seems a pretty good approximation. I might favor 5.75". <

Originally, I came up with 5.75 inches, but I rounded up. Maybe I
shouldn't do that.

I'm using all of this information for a commercial project. I would
much appreciate anything you can send, but I want to make sure you're
aware of what the information is for before you choose to send it.
Thank you much for your help,

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads
Cedar Rapids, Iowa


---

--- cornbeltroute <cornbeltroute@...> wrote:

Schuyler,

1) Using a scale ruler and photos, the rivet

heads on the HL
hoppers come out at 1.68 inches in diameter. <<

According to my Steel Manual, a 1.625" dia head on

a rivet is
exactly spec for a 1" rivet. <

Does anyone know what the "standard" rivet (and head)
size is for freight equipment? There is probably no
standard, but let's use the 37 AAR box car as a
yardstick. What size are the rivets on the car side?

Regards,
Ted

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Ted Culotta asked:

Does anyone know what the "standard" rivet (and head)
size is for freight equipment? There is probably no
standard, but let's use the 37 AAR box car as a
yardstick. What size are the rivets on the car side?

Well, the smallest rivet shown in the Steel Manual is a 1/2" rivet, which
has a 7/8" diameter head. With a plate thickness of (probably) 1/4", that'd
be the likely size used. As (I think it was) Tony Thompson (I deleted the
post) mentioned later, it depends on what's being fastened. If the rivet's
attaching the plate to a rib, then it probably would have a larger diameter,
but that's not a given.

The allowable grip of a rivet (the clear dimension between the finished
heads) varies with the diameter. There's a whole chart for this stuff, but
a 1/2" rivet tops out at a grip length of 2 7/8", so you could fasten, say,
two 1/4" plates to a 2" thick member with no problem (1/4 + 1/4 + 2 = 2
1/2"). For that HL Hopper, which has 1/4" plate sides fastened to
(variously) side ribs that look like 1/4", a top bulb angle which is 3/8",
and a 1/2" plate at the sill, all could have been assembled with 1/2" rivets
at some spacing dependent on the stresses involved. Now the >drawn< heads
do look like 1" rivets, so it's likely that the stresses involved were more
economically handled with larger rivets spaced further apart. There's a
trade-off involved about number of holes to punch/number of rivets to buy
and drive/dealing with the stresses involved/usual practices at the shop
building the cars that some engineer somewhere analyzed, and then rounded up
so as to provide a nice solid factor of safety . . .

To figure out the rivet size used in a particular case, of course, would
depend on a complete engineering analysis.

SGL

When finished with the drawing in a few days, I'll have it printed

on clear high resolution film and then proceed to etching.<<

Brian, would you be so kind as to elaborate on what exactly this

process will accomplish? No criticism, just curiousity. I enjoy
working with CAD software.... Dave Nelson<

Dave, hi,

The end goal is commercial manufacture. We're a small start-up
company that uses CNC machining and chemical milling to produce
master models from which molds are made. The hi res film output is a
necessary step in the etching/chemical milling process.

Essentially, the metal-resin cast models, produced from the brass
master, will be brass-quality models. Fine detail is the goal.

Also, we have on hand pad printer, spin-casting/vulcanizer and
vacuum/pressure casting equipment. So, the final product might easily
be a combination of several media. For example, in N scale, the HL
will most likely have metal-resin cast body and a die-cast pewter
underframe.

More questions? Ask away!

BTW, after the first few projects are out the door, I'm intending to
learn the 3D aspects of AutoCAD. Have you worked in the 3D arena?

Regards,

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads
Cedar Rapids, Iowa


---

So ... uh ... Brian,

Are you at liberty to tell us what HO projects you might have nearing release, or will they all be N
scale? Are you soliciting suggestions (and photos or data) for future projects? If so, you will probably
get lots of help here!

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

cornbeltroute wrote:

Garth, hi,

An HO Piggy Packer (PC-90 type, intermodal yard equipment, mid-1960s
to present) is furthest along yet might not be the first out. It is
very detailed, accounting for the time involved. My attention at the
moment is on the N&W HL hopper, I'm well along with the CAD drawings,
so I'm hopeful this will "spring forth" very soon.

I have manufacturer general assembly drawings for NYC Flexi-van rail
cars (mid-1950s to mid-1970s), ACF 19k gal. tank car (mid-'50s on,
CGW and UP fuel, also 1990s UP fuel tenders), Thrall 4727/5750 carbon
black covered hoppers. Also a modern sulfuric acid tank car. Various
highway trailers. Prototype buildings of the granger railroads. . . .
More than I can chew at the moment, really.

But, essentially, to quote an old football coach, we're scratching
where it itches.

We hope to produce all items in N and HO scales.

Garth, we wish to hear any wishes/suggestions. As a manufacturer, I
do not want to stand at a distance but rather shoulder-to-shoulder
with my fellow modelers and discuss projects first-hand. For
instance, my interest in N&W HL hoppers sprang directly from
discussions on this list. I've taken particular note of the chat
concerning rivet sizes.

I hope you and others so inclined will help us by viewing photos of
projects in progress, telling us where we've gone wrong, and the like.

Best regards,

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads


---

We hope to produce all items in N and HO scales.

Garth, we wish to hear any wishes/suggestions. As a manufacturer, I
do not want to stand at a distance but rather shoulder-to-shoulder
with my fellow modelers and discuss projects first-hand. For
instance, my interest in N&W HL hoppers sprang directly from
discussions on this list.

If I might make a suggestion, I'd recommend doing the N&W H-9 in HO
scale rather than the HL. N&W rebuilt all the HLs into H-9s from 1948-56,
which seems to be more in line with the era of your other projects.
Stewart already has a mostly-accurate HL model in HO (although Brock
thinks it's too short for some reason), but the H-9 market is wide open.
Drawings for the H-9 were in the 1953 CBC and were reprinted in the
"N&W Williamson Terminal" compilation of articles from Model Railroading.

http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns2106.jpeg
http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns2109.jpeg
http://spec.lib.vt.edu/imagebase/norfolksouthern/full/ns2103.jpeg

David Thompson

David Thompson writes:

We hope to produce all items in N and HO scales.

If I might make a suggestion, I'd recommend doing the N&W H-9 in HO
scale rather than the HL. N&W rebuilt all the HLs into H-9s from 1948-56,
which seems to be more in line with the era of your other projects.

The rebuilding into the H9...the Dow book shows the first H9's appearing in
1950...appears to have only one noticeable change. The late production HL's
did not have the sloping side sheets and the H9 duplicates that. However,
many H9's had a two piece side...with a rivet line parallel to the tracks.
Some...of course...did not. By doing the car without this line, one could
easily have a model that would work for either the HL or H9.

Stewart already has a mostly-accurate HL model in HO (although Brock
thinks it's too short for some reason),

I have asked more than once for someone that owns one to measure the side.
So far no one has offered this measurement. You seem to feel that the side
of the Stewart car is correct so I assume you have one. If true...what is
the side's dimensions? I only have the straight sided Stewart car.

but the H-9 market is wide open.

Drawings for the H-9 were in the 1953 CBC and were reprinted in the
"N&W Williamson Terminal" compilation of articles from Model Railroading.

I would...as I said...think that a model could easily be done for both. If
in resin...why not do both forms of the side?

Mike Brock

I'd recommend doing the N&W H-9 in HO scale rather than the HL. N&W

rebuilt all the HLs into H-9s from 1948-56.<

David, I printed the H9 photos you referenced as well as a few other
H9 pics from the VT site. Comparing photos of the HL and H9 in both
profile and end photos, I have a couple of questions (I grew up in
the Midwest, so have patience. . . .):

1) Was the HL class built new or the result of an earlier rebuilding
program. I do not not know if coal hoppers might go through two such
programs during their service lives.

2) Are the major dimensions of the HL and H9 classes identical?

3) From inspecting the photos I mentioned above, I note two major
spotting differences:
A) Side sill - (HL pic ns1957, H9 pic ns2107). On the H9, the 2nd
and 7th side panels have been extended to full length, eliminating
the diagonal cut on the HL comparable panels.
B) Peaked end and brake step - (HL pic ns 1568, H9 pic ns2199).
The HL brake end has a fully symmetrical peak, equidistant angles on
either side. The H9 has one short-angled side, plus the eave has been
continued horizontally across the end. The brakewheel and step have
been relocated from the HL to the H9 to provide the eave difference.

Any other major differences between these two classes? If the
underframes are the same for both classes, it appears both classes
could be produced with little trouble.

Brian Chapman
Granger Roads

The rebuilding into the H9...the Dow book shows the first H9's appearing
in 1950...appears to have only one noticeable change.

Nope, the first rebuilds were done at the end of 1948. N&W 80000 was
the first H-9 and its N&W photo is dated 12-23-48 (which means it was
probably finished a day or two before).

The late production HL's did not have the sloping side sheets...

Yes they did. Dow was misled by a 1952 photo of an H-9 numbered 58500
and stenciled 'HL', probably for use in an N&W equipment booklet. The
end photo of that car shows that number was painted on a piece of paper
taped over the original. I've seen photos of all the 1939-40 orders
built by Bethlehem and Virginia Bridge and they had sloping side sheets.

However, many H9's had a two piece side...with a rivet line parallel to
the tracks.

The last rebuilds done in 1956 had 2-piece side sheets and the early-
1960s refurbishings at Princeton used 2-piece sheets, but most H-9s had
solid sheets as built.

You seem to feel that the side of the Stewart car is correct so I assume
you have one. If true...what is the side's dimensions?

I had the chance to look one over a few years ago and I thought then it
was correct. When my N&WHS 6-pack gets here, I'll slap the scale rule all
over it and report back.

I would...as I said...think that a model could easily be done for both.
If in resin...why not do both forms of the side?

You'd also need different ends, but both could certainly be done.

David Thompson

1) Was the HL class built new or the result of an earlier rebuilding
program.

The HLs were all brand-new from the ground up.

I do not not know if coal hoppers might go through two such programs
during their service lives.

N&W's first generation of steel hoppers from 1910-15 were rebuilt in
the mid-late 1920s and again in the late 1930s, but most other roads
usually replaced their old hoppers rather than rebuild them more than
once.

2) Are the major dimensions of the HL and H9 classes identical?

Yep, interior dimensions are identical as are most of the externals.
The H-9 had a larger top side angle and heavier corner caps than the HL.

On the H9, the 2nd and 7th side panels have been extended to full
length, eliminating the diagonal cut on the HL comparable panels.

Right. The H-9 also had large towing loops in the corners made by those
extended panels and the stub sills.

The HL brake end has a fully symmetrical peak, equidistant angles on
either side. The H9 has one short-angled side, plus the eave has been
continued horizontally across the end.

Right.

The brakewheel and step have been relocated from the HL to the H9 to
provide the eave difference.

It looks to me like the brakewheel and step were in the same relative
place on both, but the leftmost angle for the step was farther left on
the H-9. One other difference is that the HL used a stamped-diamond
plate for the brake step while the H-9 used an open steel grid. The air
line for the retainer valve was also routed differently on the H-9.

Any other major differences between these two classes? If the
underframes are the same for both classes, it appears both classes
could be produced with little trouble.

David Thompson

The brakewheel and step have been relocated from the HL to the H9 to
provide the eave difference.

It looks to me like the brakewheel and step were in the same relative
place on both, but the leftmost angle for the step was farther left on
the H-9.

Actually, ignore this part. I checked the wrong end photo.

David Thompson