Date
1 - 9 of 9
USAX 38005 heavy duty flat
|
Clyde Williams <billdgoat@...>
The military equipment was listed in the ORER, at least in the 1943
issue, the year I model. The manuals are for instructions in general, not specific data. That's why they are listed in the ORER. In 1943 only tank cars were listed as military owned. The Navy under U.S.N.X., and the Army as C.W.S.X., U.S.O.X. AND U.S.Q.X. The USQX (Q for Quartermaster Corps) were for petoleum (gasoline). The USOX seemed to be for assorted general chemicals, including assorted acids, while the CWSX cars were for chlorine, arsenic tri-chloride, yellow and white phosphorus, which were apparantly more dangerous, and, oddly, alcohol. Intermountain ran the USQX cars (silver with black lettering) a few years ago. In response to my question a few years ago, they stated they had no current plans to rerun these cars. Hopefully that may change. Bill Williams |
|
|
|
Ian Cranstone
Gene Green asks:
Wouldn't T29 and T30 be Soviet tanks?In this case, no. The U.S. Army assigned Txx numbers to test vehicles, and only assigned the Mxx numbers after they had been given production status. If these are the same vehicles referred to in my "British and American Tanks of World War II" book, the T29 was a heavy tank prototype mounting a 105 mm gun, originally intended for use in the invasion of Japan. The T30 was an essentially identical vehicle, but mounted a 155 mm gun. There was also a variant T34 design which mounted a 120 mm gun, which apparently evolved into the M103 heavy tank. According to their vital statistics, these were huge vehicles, weighing 69 & 72 tons -- the M4 Shermans ran about 33-35 tons. Now moving off this topic before our moderator steps in... Ian & Katherina Cranstone Osgoode, Ontario, Canada lamontc@... http://freightcars.nakina.net |
|
|
|
Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
The "T" series of tanks, when discussing American armored vehicles, refers
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
to experimental series. -- Thanks! Brian Ehni From: bierglaeser <bierglaeser@...> |
|
|
|
bierglaeser <bierglaeser@...>
The US military had/has an odd way of keeping track of railway
equipment. I have a copy of Technical Manual 55-208, Railway Equipment Characteristics and Data dated October 1976. For those of us used to ORERs, equipment diagram books and so on, TM 55-208 is really lame. Reporting marks and number series are NOT included. Sometimes there are enough dimensions that one can make an educated guess from the ORER but not always. The lowest numbered cars in 38000 series for which I can find records and builder's photos and any accurate information is 38016-38665, 54'- 0" IL flats with six-wheel trucks and 200,000 capacity built by Magor in 1953. Obviously not the car in the photos. USAX (now marked DOD) 38116 sets on an Army siding about 50 miles from where I live. It has Buckeye trucks. The reporting marks USAX were used only for tank cars in the October 1948 ORER. In 1943 there was no such thing as USAX reporting marks. In the April 1950 and Jan 1951 ORERs I find USAX flats 38000 and 38008, the former a well car, the latter apparently not. The Department of Defense, formerly War Dept. and Navy Dept., bought lots of used cars and still does. USAX 38005 could conceivably be a one- of-a-kind car in the Army's roster. I have Xerox copies of undated photos of 38008 and 38007. USAX 38008 has four six-wheel trucks of a really weird design connected with span bolsters. USAX 38007 has four four-wheel "bettendorf" trucks, span bolsters, etc. The two cars are nothing alike. Wouldn't T29 and T30 be Soviet tanks? Gene Green /////////////////////////////////////// --- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@v...> wrote: Hi Folks,(T29, T30) onto a flatcar circa 1949.information about this flat car.Benjamin Franklin________________________________ |- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ ____ | | / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ |||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__|| |/_____________________________\|_|________________________________| | O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0 |
|
|
|
smithbf@...
AHM / Roco had a heavy duty fishbelly flat in HO similar to the carCharlie, The Roco car is pretty good for the 1953 Magor built cars. USAX is not one of these (obviously, given the 1949 date <G>, but also due to some construction spotting features like sill height) so that's why I was asking. I am curious to know more about its history. Regards Bruce Bruce Smith Auburn AL |
|
|
|
Charlie Vlk
AHM / Roco had a heavy duty fishbelly flat in HO similar to the car in the
picture. I don't know if the car has been offered in the recent decades but it did exist (along with the more familiar depressed center flat) as an AHM import during the mid 60's. AMTRAK had some of these cars which they inherited from DODX. Charlie Vlk |
|
|
|
Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
I'd love to see this loaded on a flat!
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
http://www.missing-lynx.com/gallery/modern/dmt28.htm -- Thanks! Brian Ehni From: Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...> |
|
|
|
Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
As a side issue, isn't this what became the M103 heavy tank?
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
-- Thanks! Brian Ehni From: Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> |
|
|
|
Bruce Smith <smithbf@...>
Hi Folks,
Here is a link to images of loading an experimental heavy tank (T29, T30) onto a flatcar circa 1949. http://www.afvnews.ca/cgi-bin/web-bbs/webbbs_config.pl/read/60976 The car is USAX 38005. I am curious to know any additional information about this flat car. Regards Bruce Bruce F. Smith Auburn, AL http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/ "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin __ / \ __<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________ |- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ | | / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__|| |/_____________________________\|_|________________________________| | O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0 |
|
|