DS cars in grain service


Miller, Andrew S. <asmiller@...>
 

Were double sheathed cars regularly used in grain service? It seems to
me that grain would infiltrate between the inner and outer sheathing
and attract vermin. Better to use a single sheathed car and let the
escaped grain fall to the ground to feed the local fauna.


regards,

Andy Miller


gn3397 <heninger@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Miller, Andrew S." <asmiller@...> wrote:

Were double sheathed cars regularly used in grain service? It seems
to
me that grain would infiltrate between the inner and outer sheathing
and attract vermin. Better to use a single sheathed car and let the
escaped grain fall to the ground to feed the local fauna.


regards,

Andy Miller
Well, they certainly were used for that service on the Great Northern.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND


Greg Martin
 

Andy,



they very well could have and I believe they were in fact. I have sevral S/B Tabloids that in fact show liners that could be applied to the inside of house cars for just this purpose.



Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: Miller, Andrew S. <asmiller@mitre.org>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 28 Aug 2007 1:01 pm
Subject: [STMFC] DS cars in grain service







Were double sheathed cars regularly used in grain service? It seems to
me that grain would infiltrate between the inner and outer sheathing
and attract vermin. Better to use a single sheathed car and let the
escaped grain fall to the ground to feed the local fauna.

regards,

Andy Miller




________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 28, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Miller, Andrew S. wrote:

Were double sheathed cars regularly used in grain service? It seems to
me that grain would infiltrate between the inner and outer sheathing
and attract vermin. Better to use a single sheathed car and let the
escaped grain fall to the ground to feed the local fauna.
Andy, double sheathed cars were PREFERRED for grain service. That's
why all the granger RRs got double sheathed instead of single sheathed
USRA box cars. The advantage of double sheathed cars was their
superior weather protection. Any sort of leakage which got the grain
wet was unacceptable. This was even more true in flour service, for
obvious reasons. And, as you'll see when Focus on Fright Cars Vol. 2
appears later this year, large numbers of double wood sheathed box cars
were used for flour loading in the 1930s, and many were assigned
exclusively to flour service.

Richard Hendrickson


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Miller, Andrew S." <asmiller@...> wrote:

Were double sheathed cars regularly used in grain service? It seems to
me that grain would infiltrate between the inner and outer sheathing
and attract vermin. Better to use a single sheathed car and let the
escaped grain fall to the ground to feed the local fauna.


regards,

Andy Miller
I thought we put this vermin thing to rest a couple of weeks ago, but
maybe it wasn't on this list. Vermin were not a problem for grain
before it was milled; they simply sifted the little critters out.

Anyway, if you think about it, ALL the AAR design steel boxcars were
double sheathed, since the steel sheathing was on the outside of the
posts, and the wood lining was applied to their inside faces.

And, as Richard was kind enough to point out, double sheathed cars
were originally favored for grain. One of the original arguments
against single sheathed construction was that the combined
sheathing/lining, because it was exposed to the weather, would shrink
with time and leak grain. The entire thrust of the Foweler Patents (we
won't go into that again:-) was a device to tighten the sheathing if
this should occur. Fortunately (or unfortunately, in the case of Mr.
Fowler's royalty payments) the device was directed at a problem that
proved not to exist, and fell out of favor after a couple of years.
After that, either style car was considered suitable for grain, so
long as it didn't leek water and could be made tight so it didn't leak
grain.

Dennis


rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Steel cars had inside linings too. I was told they would remove the
bottom side boards so the grain would flow out from in between.
Clark Propst


Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

In all my times of association with the car distribution process, I don't recall ever seeing an order that said anything about type of sheathing. That was not part of the readily available information about a car. If it's40 ft. box with no leaks in the roof, sides or floor, no visible contamination (e.g.grease,oil) and it has six foot doors, it's a grain car.



Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 29, 2007, at 8:30 AM, Malcolm Laughlin wrote:

In all my times of association with the car distribution process, I
don't recall ever seeing an order that said anything about type of
sheathing. That was not part of the readily available information
about a car. If it's40 ft. box with no leaks in the roof, sides or
floor, no visible contamination (e.g.grease,oil) and it has six foot
doors, it's a grain car.
Good grief! I leave home for a couple of days and my observation that
granger railroads preferred double sheathed to single sheathed USRA box
cars prompted a largely irrelevant discussion of car distribution.
Obviously Malcolm's last sentence is correct. But the preference of
many RRs for double sheathed box cars had nothing to do with car
distribution. It was simply a conviction, whether correct or
incorrect, that double sheathed cars were more likely to remain
weatherproof in service, and thus usable for grain shipments.

Richard Hendrickson


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

Good grief! I leave home for a couple of days and my observation that
granger railroads preferred double sheathed to single sheathed USRA box
cars prompted a largely irrelevant discussion of car distribution.
Obviously Malcolm's last sentence is correct. But the preference of
many RRs for double sheathed box cars had nothing to do with car
distribution. It was simply a conviction, whether correct or
incorrect, that double sheathed cars were more likely to remain
weatherproof in service, and thus usable for grain shipments.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard,

I, for one, believe your original premise, that the USRA intentionally
allocated DS cars to roads with a lot to grain traffic (how's that for
doing an end run around the "Granger road" debate :-), is flawed.
First off, as a gov't agency, it's hard to believe they had that kind
of clear thinking and foresight. Secondly, in the face of the national
emergency, they likely didn't have that kind of luxury anyway. Very
likely, groups of cars were assigned as they became available to plug
holes and put out brushfires in the car supply.

There are a couple of other factors that very likely had more bearing
on the decision other than the kind of sheathing; the DS cars were 40
ton capacity, while the SS cars were 50; and no one has offered any
info on the relative price of one against the other. Remember, even
though the USRA was having the cars built to their specs, the
railroads were expected to pay for them. Some roads objected
vehemently to being saddled with the cost of cars they didn't want or
felt they needed, and as Lane points out, there was a certain amount
of "horse trading" and shifting of allocations.

A better way to look at the question of which was thought to be the
better car for grain might be to see what the railroads themselves
were buying just prior to the creation of the USRA. If one goes back
just ten years previous, ALL the roads apparently felt that the DS car
was the best, as that was all that was being built. Swain and Clegg do
a good job of documenting the arguments raised against SS boxcars in
their seminal work on the development of the SS car in Canada by CPR
and DC&F, and subsequent research on the Fowler patents reveal the
designs implemented to allay those fears. By 1917 you have a situation
where CPR, Soo, C&NW at least had decided that the SS design could
make a workable grain car, while NP and GN still insisted on building
DS cars. As time went on after the roads were returned to private
control in the early twenties, it becomes obvious that the industry at
large accepted the SS car as adequate, even if there were a few hold-outs


Dennis


armprem
 

To toss a match into the gas tank,why then did the Canadian roads rely on single sheathed car for their grain traffic? Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@mchsi.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 2:41 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: DS cars in grain service


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

Good grief! I leave home for a couple of days and my observation that
granger railroads preferred double sheathed to single sheathed USRA box
cars prompted a largely irrelevant discussion of car distribution.
Obviously Malcolm's last sentence is correct. But the preference of
many RRs for double sheathed box cars had nothing to do with car
distribution. It was simply a conviction, whether correct or
incorrect, that double sheathed cars were more likely to remain
weatherproof in service, and thus usable for grain shipments.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard,

I, for one, believe your original premise, that the USRA intentionally
allocated DS cars to roads with a lot to grain traffic (how's that for
doing an end run around the "Granger road" debate :-), is flawed.
First off, as a gov't agency, it's hard to believe they had that kind
of clear thinking and foresight. Secondly, in the face of the national
emergency, they likely didn't have that kind of luxury anyway. Very
likely, groups of cars were assigned as they became available to plug
holes and put out brushfires in the car supply.

There are a couple of other factors that very likely had more bearing
on the decision other than the kind of sheathing; the DS cars were 40
ton capacity, while the SS cars were 50; and no one has offered any
info on the relative price of one against the other. Remember, even
though the USRA was having the cars built to their specs, the
railroads were expected to pay for them. Some roads objected
vehemently to being saddled with the cost of cars they didn't want or
felt they needed, and as Lane points out, there was a certain amount
of "horse trading" and shifting of allocations.

A better way to look at the question of which was thought to be the
better car for grain might be to see what the railroads themselves
were buying just prior to the creation of the USRA. If one goes back
just ten years previous, ALL the roads apparently felt that the DS car
was the best, as that was all that was being built. Swain and Clegg do
a good job of documenting the arguments raised against SS boxcars in
their seminal work on the development of the SS car in Canada by CPR
and DC&F, and subsequent research on the Fowler patents reveal the
designs implemented to allay those fears. By 1917 you have a situation
where CPR, Soo, C&NW at least had decided that the SS design could
make a workable grain car, while NP and GN still insisted on building
DS cars. As time went on after the roads were returned to private
control in the early twenties, it becomes obvious that the industry at
large accepted the SS car as adequate, even if there were a few hold-outs


Dennis





Yahoo! Groups Links



Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 31, 2007, at 11:41 AM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

I, for one, believe your original premise, that the USRA intentionally
allocated DS cars to roads with a lot to grain traffic (how's that for
doing an end run around the "Granger road" debate :-), is flawed.
First off, as a gov't agency, it's hard to believe they had that kind
of clear thinking and foresight. Secondly, in the face of the national
emergency, they likely didn't have that kind of luxury anyway. Very
likely, groups of cars were assigned as they became available to plug
holes and put out brushfires in the car supply.
There was certainly a great deal of confusion about which railroads got
which cars from the USRA. As William D. Edson pointed out in his
seminal account of the USRA standard freight cars (Railroad History No.
128, Spring, 1973), the war had ended before most of the USRA cars were
delivered and some railroads simply refused to accept the cars the USRA
wanted to allocate to them (e.g., in the case of the 40 ton double
sheathed box cars, the C&EI and the Nickel Plate) while others accepted
cars that hadn't been originally allocated (e.g., DT&I and KCS) or
accepted more cars than had originally been allocated (e.g., CRI&P,
SL-SF, WAB). There was a great deal of negotiation involved before the
final allocations were made. To quote Edson,

"only 22 of the 69 railroads...were finally allocated the exact number
and type of car as was originally assigned to them.... Thirteen
railroads which appeared on the original allocation list received no
cars under the final allocations.... On the other hand, seven
railroads which were not originally given car allocations were later
assigned cars by the USRA." (pp. 18-19)

Reasons for the changes in allocation ranged from financial (the B&M
was in receivership and the T&P was in such bad financial condition
that neither could afford to pay for the cars originally allocated to
them) to the fact that several RRs (e.g., UP and NP) were already hard
at work building the cars they needed in their own shops.

It's clear, at any rate, that the USRA bureaucracy was unable to simply
impose allocations on the railroads at will, and that the individual
railroads had a good deal to say about which cars they received and how
many. As you yourself point out, the RRs that got double wood sheathed
cars were, for the most part, those that purchased such cars on their
own initiative both before and after WW I. In the case of the Santa
Fe, company policy was to make moving the annual grain rush traffic a
very high priority in planning the design and purchase of new box cars,
and it seems likely that similar policies were in effect on the other
granger railroads. So I think it's reasonable to assume that the
assignment of wood sheathed box cars to railroads like the Santa Fe,
Frisco, Wabash, and Rock Island reflects the preferences of their
mechanical departments and not merely the luck of the draw or
bureaucratic inflexibility.

Richard Hendrickson


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:
... As William D. Edson pointed out in his
seminal account of the USRA standard freight cars (Railroad History No.
128, Spring, 1973)...
Err, James E. Lane, CPA is cited as author of the 1973 article in
Railroad History. Edson is cited in the end notes as the author of a
1955 article on the USRA in general, but the statements quoted are
from the Lane article.

Dennis


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:44 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:
> ... As William D. Edson pointed out in his
> seminal account of the USRA standard freight cars (Railroad History
No.
> 128, Spring, 1973)...

Err, James E. Lane, CPA is cited as author of the 1973 article in
Railroad History. Edson is cited in the end notes as the author of a
1955 article on the USRA in general, but the statements quoted are
from the Lane article.
Thank you, Dennis. I apologize for the brain fade.

Richard Hendrickson