Folks,

The January 2006 Mainline Modeler arrived today with an articly by
Thornton Waite entitled "A WWII Tank Car". While there are some puzzling
comments made by Mr. Waite, the most puzzling thing to me is the car
itself. The car is preserved at the Utah State Railroad Museum in Ogden.
Mr. Waite indicates that it is a USG-A war emergency tank car. Sure
enough, the tank is stenciled "UNITED STATES ARMY", "USAX", "EMERGENCY
USG-A" and "AC&FCO 10 42" and the road number appears to be 11278. So far
so good. However, the frame is clearly not an AC&F type 27, but a GATC
frame. So is this a case of tank swapping?? Or did AC&F use GATC
components on some of these cars?

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Jan 30, 2006, at 5:22 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:

The January 2006 Mainline Modeler arrived today with an articly by
Thornton Waite entitled "A WWII Tank Car".  While there are some
puzzling
comments made by Mr. Waite, the most puzzling thing to me is the car
itself.  The car is preserved at the Utah State Railroad Museum in
Ogden.
Mr. Waite indicates that it is a USG-A war emergency tank car.  Sure
enough, the tank is stenciled "UNITED STATES ARMY", "USAX", "EMERGENCY
USG-A" and "AC&FCO 10 42" and the road number appears to be 11278. 
So far
so good.  However, the frame is clearly not an AC&F type 27, but a
GATC
frame.  So is this a case of tank swapping??  Or did AC&F use GATC
components on some of these cars?

Since I don't subscribe to MM, having grown weary of Bob Hundman's
eccentric hobby horses, I haven't seen Waite's "puzzling remarks,"
though nothing would surprise me. The cars themselves, however (series
USQX 11200-11309 and 11311-11475) were built new by AC&F with
underframes that resemble GATC designs; I have builder's photos which
show this. It's certainly interesting that one of these cars has
survived. Incidentally, the original reporting marks were USQX but
were changed to USAX ca. 1950 when the army decided to have all its
freight cars operate under a single set of reporting marks. Later, of
course, both the army and navy freight cars were combined into a single
fleet with DODX reporting marks.

Richard Hendrickson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Bruce Smith wrote:

The January 2006 Mainline Modeler arrived today with an articly by
Thornton Waite entitled "A WWII Tank Car". While there are some puzzling
comments made by Mr. Waite . . .

The usual article by Mr. Waite is a "I took some photos recently, here they are" type of piece. His knowledge of history is either quite limited, or too uninteresting to him to bother including, or is censored by Mr. Hundman. He does take good photos, though, and they are always worth examining--but you essentially have to supply your own history.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

Later, of
course, both the army and navy freight cars were combined into a single
fleet with DODX reporting marks.

I am astonished, sir, that you forget the Air Force.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Tony Thompson wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

Later, of
course, both the army and navy freight cars were combined into a
single
fleet with DODX reporting marks.

I am astonished, sir, that you forget the Air Force.

Tony Thompson

Richard's year is 1947 - a year before the Army Air Corps became the Air Force.

Tim Gilbert

Tim Gilbert wrote:

Richard's year is 1947 - a year before the Army Air Corps became the Air
Force.

Ah, but he was referring to the post-1950 conversion to DODX reporting marks (I agree he needs some slack whenever dealing with post-1947 events).

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

On Jan 30, 2006, at 6:44 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Tim Gilbert wrote:
> Richard's year is 1947 - a year before the Army Air Corps became the
> Air
> Force.

       Ah, but he was referring to the post-1950 conversion to DODX
reporting marks (I agree he needs some slack whenever dealing with
post-1947 events).

More to the point, gents, the U. S. Air Force never owned its own tank
cars.

Richard Hendrickson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tony Thompson notes about Richard Hendrickson's comment:

I am astonished, sir, that you forget the Air Force.

And Tim Gilbert...ever vigilent about historical perspectives... notes:

"Richard's year is 1947 - a year before the Army Air Corps became the Air
Force."

Perhaps. However, the Coast Guard was formed in 1915 and I, like Tony, am stunned that it was not referenced. I have it on good account that at least one Coast Guard car went over Sherman Hill at one time.

Incidentally, regardless of which armed service was neglected, I wonder if these cars could be used as a candidate for the Tichy car...albeit with some mods to the frame?

Mike Brock

On Jan 30, 2006, at 8:43 PM, Mike Brock wrote:

I wonder if these cars could be used as a candidate for the Tichy
car...albeit with some
mods to the frame?

Yes, I've done it. Turned out pretty well. Next time I'm shooting
model photos, I'll get a photo and post it.

Richard Hendrickson

More to the point, gents, the U. S. Air Force never owned its own tank
cars.

So the two tank cars and one flat car I saw at Wright-Patterson, lettered for the Air Force, were bogus?

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

On Monday, January 30, 2006, at 05:22 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:

So far
so good.  However, the frame is clearly not an AC&F type 27, but a GATC
frame.  So is this a case of tank swapping??  Or did AC&F use GATC
components on some of these cars?

Bruce,
In addition to the information Richard provided about these cars, there
were 110 cars (11200-11309) built as part of AC&F lot number 2522. The
first 35 cars came with heater pipes and were painted entirely black
with white stencils. The last 75 cars lacked heater pipes and the top
part of the tank was painted gray with black lettering over gray; the
bottom part of the tank, underframe, and trucks were painted black with
white stencils. Builder's photos of 11200 and 11242 show a build date
of 10-42. These tank cars were not specified as Type 27 in the bill of
materials although the AC&F lot number list does specify the order as
Type 27. This is obviously conflicting information.

To help answer Mike's question about the Tichy model being used to
model these cars, the prototypes had an underframe length over the ends
sills of 36'-0 1/2" by 9'-5" wide. Wood running boards. The 4-course
tank was 33'-6 1/2" long by 85" diameter. Dome was 48" diameter and
23-1/2" high. The cars were originally built to transport gasoline. I
cannot locate the general arrangement drawing for this lot number (the
g/a drawing number from the BOM is 41-3197) in the Museum of
Transportation ACF drawing collection. The tank arrangement drawing is
in the MOT collection (drawing number 31-3111) and is available to be
ordered if anyone is interested.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mike,

At the risk of being pedantic, the U.S. Coast Guard has never been part of the Dept. of Defense, therefore DODX reporting marks would not apply. The USCG has been part of the Treasury, Transportation and now Homeland Security Depts., and although it has operated under control of the U.S. Navy in time of war, it has always enjoyed unique status as a non-War Dept./DOD agency.

I know of no Coast Guard-owned railway equipment, though the base on Government Island between Alameda and Oakland once had rail service. The sole "exception" was a CV geep that was painted in Coast Guard colors in the 1970s for publicity purposes.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff
Former USCG Photojournalist, First Class

Mike Brock wrote:

I believe Richard's assertion is mostly correct and maybe literally
correct. Some activities have never been split after the Air Force was
spun off from the Army Air Corps. One such activity is the management
of rail assets. The Army always did it for both the Army and the Air
Force.

When the Military Traffic Management Command offices in St. Louis were
closed I managed to salvage some material. Most of the good stuff went
into the dumpsters.

I have a Xerox copy of a photo of USAFX 71000 built 5-53 which was a
200-ton, 44'-0" flat car with four 4-wheel trucks. Builder is unknown.

The July 1954 ORER lists ten DAFX FD flat cars numbered 70000-70010 and
eight DAFX FG flat cars numbered 71000-71007. My next ORER is January
1961 and they are not listed there.

I have an equipment diagram for the 71000 series although there are no
dimensions and no mention of date built, builder, number series or any
f the other information we tend to take for granted. I was able to
match photo to diagram by means of the National Stock Number 2220-00-
351-9814. The car is identified as "Railway car, flat 56 1/2 inch
(143.51 cm) gage, 200 ton (180 metric ton), 16 wheel, domestic service
(DFRIF)."

There is an bogus "Air Force" tank car on display at Holoman Air Force
Base in New Mexico. It is the prototype for the Red Caboose tank car.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@s...> wrote:

More to the point, gents, the U. S. Air Force never owned its own

tank

cars.

So the two tank cars and one flat car I saw at Wright-

Patterson,

lettered for the Air Force, were bogus?

Tony Thompson

Friends,

The Air Force certainly did have its own equipment, as Tony asserts. I'm not an expert on military railway operations, but it seems to me that although most equipment in interchange service was passed to the DODX in the early 1950s, the three major services maintained some equipment (probably) for non-interchange use which remained lettered for the individual branches. For example, an ex-Air Force 40' PS-1 boxcar may be found in the collection of the CSRM in Sacramento. When I examined the car about 10 years ago, Air Force markings were still readable, though they had been painted over. Other examples may be found at the Army Transportation Museum at Ft. Eustis, Virginia. One display are a number of locomotives and cars with Army markings. Maybe this example is unfair, as Ft. Eustis is home to the Army's railway training school, but the equipment is there for anyone to see.

I had the impression that the Red Caboose tank car was modeled after on at the Feather River Railroad Museum in Portola. They certainly have one that is a close match, as shown in Richard H.'s RMJ article when this model was released.

Getting back to the USG-A tanks, were any cars of this type used by non-military owners or leasors?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff


Gene Green wrote:

On Jan 31, 2006, at 9:31 AM, Garth Groff wrote:

Getting back to the USG-A tanks, were any cars of this type used by
non-military owners or leasors?

Yes, SHPX for sure, and IIRC, Frontenac(?)

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
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

Garth Groff wrote:

... The sole "exception" was a CV geep that was painted in Coast Guard colors in
the 1970s for publicity purposes...

I would love to see a picture of this locomotive!

The following link is to a picture of a "Coast Guard" caboose, now used by the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the Whittier Chamber.

http://www.alaskarails.org/pix/caboose/SS-1076-coast-guard.jpg

It was originally an Alaska RR caboose [ http://www.alaskarails.org/pix/caboose/RK-1076.html ].

--
--
Peter J. McClosky
Formerly of Los Angeles, CA
Now Living in Eugene, Oregon
http://home.earthlink.net/~pmcclosky
pmcclosky@...
pmcclosky@...

I assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that this discussion was limited to
freight cars in interchange service. Except for the brief listing in
the 1954 ORER of two USAFX flat car series totalling 18 cars I have
been unable to find any Air Force freight car listings in the ORERs.
Since my collection if far from complete I may not have looked in the
right place yet. If anyone has an ORER from 1955 or 1956 I'd
appreciate hearing what is to be found therein on this topic.

There are and were many Army, Navy and Air Force freight cars for
intra-plant use only. The various Army Ammo Depots used to have lots
of them. In the case of Army cars they were marked USA instead of
USAX (same as cars for foreign service). The Air Force could have
had the same sort of thing but I don't know. I know the Navy had
cars for intra-plant use only but I don't know how they were
distinguished.

Over the years the military has purchased used freight cars and new
freight cars. In the case of freight cars built new for one of the
military services there is a cast metal plate that contains, among
other things, the original reporting marks, Federal Stock Number,
builder, date built and some other stuff. This plate was only on one
side of each car. For those who come across former military freight
cars in museums may I suggest that you look for the plate? My
experience has been that the "Air Force" freight cars have USAX
reporting marks on the plate. Like locomotive builder's plates, a
lot of these plates have been removed by souvenir hunters (aka
railfans).

Given that the equipment diagram of the "Air Force" flat car I
mentioned in an earlier post is found in an Army Technical Manual I
tend to regard the car as an Army car. I view the 1954 ORER listing
as a fluke.

Ignore all those black locomotive with UNITED STATES AIR FORCE
lettered on the sides. According to my contacts those are Army
locomotives used by the Air Force.

Gene Green

On Jan 30, 2006, at 10:21 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

More to the point, gents, the U. S. Air Force never owned its own

tank
> cars.

      So the two tank cars and one flat car I saw at Wright-Patterson,
lettered for the Air Force, were bogus?

To the best of my knowledge, they were never listed in the ORERs, which
means that they were never operated in interchange.

Richard Hendrickson


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

On Jan 31, 2006, at 7:31 AM, Garth Groff wrote:

The Air Force certainly did have its own equipment, as Tony asserts.

Many entities, both public and private, owned railroad cars which never
operated in interchange and never left their own properties. That the
U. S. Air Force was one of them is not at issue. My original point was
that only the Army and Navy owned cars that were listed in the ORERs
and that remains true; Gene Green has provided a useful explanation of
why no Air Force cars appeared there.

I had the impression that the Red Caboose tank car was modeled after
on
at the Feather River Railroad Museum in Portola. They certainly have
one
that is a close match, as shown in Richard H.'s RMJ article when this
model was released.

Correct. Someone from RC went to the museum with camera and tape
measure, so the RC model is a highly accurate representation of the
postwar AC&F 10K gal. welded prototype. They chose that prototype so
they wouldn't have to tool rivets. Unfortunately, they have since
issued the model in countless P/L schemes that were only applied to
riveted cars, but the model is correct for a sizable number of USAX
cars as well as for some diesel fuel cars built for RRs like the Frisco
that were converting from steam to diesel in the early '50s.

Richard Hendrickson

A picture of the locomotive (considerably later than this list, BTW)
appears in the slide show on the highball Decals site:

http://www.mgdecals.com/homepage.htm

They also have some interesting steam-era freight car decals available.

Pieter Roos

--- In STMFC@..., "Peter J. McClosky" <pmcclosky@c...>
wrote:

Garth Groff wrote:

... The sole "exception" was a CV geep that was painted in Coast
Guard colors in
the 1970s for publicity purposes...

I would love to see a picture of this locomotive!