AC&F type 19 tank cars?


Bruce Smith
 

Folks,

Maybe I'm being forgetful, but was there an AC&F tank car type
intermediate between the type 17 and the type 21? (e.g. a "type 19")
In perusing Ed's Kaminski's AC&F tank car book for the type 11
project, I noticed photos of several cars that intrigued me. These
have 3 course (horizontal) tanks, domes with safety valves on top,
and what appear to be frames with the channel side sills facing
inward. These cars were built in 1919 and 1920. Specifically, I am
looking at COMX 661 (p95), IMRX 875 and WHOX 1191 ( both p97).

It would appear that perhaps a Tichy underframe and a P2K type 21 3
course tank might be pretty durn close...

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ \
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:17 AM, Bruce Smith wrote:

Maybe I'm being forgetful, but was there an AC&F tank car type
intermediate between the type 17 and the type 21? (e.g. a "type 19")
In perusing Ed's Kaminski's AC&F tank car book for the type 11
project, I noticed photos of several cars that intrigued me. These
have 3 course (horizontal) tanks, domes with safety valves on top,
and what appear to be frames with the channel side sills facing
inward. These cars were built in 1919 and 1920. Specifically, I am
looking at COMX 661 (p95), IMRX 875 and WHOX 1191 ( both p97).

It would appear that perhaps a Tichy underframe and a P2K type 21 3
course tank might be pretty durn close...












Bruce, there's no question that AC&F built some cars ca. 1919 that
seem to have combined the Type 17 underframe with the later tank
design, which had a larger dome and safeties on top of the dome
instead of on a side-mounted elbow. What AC&F called them, however,
has never been established, AFAIK. For that matter, a bunch of cars
were delivered in 1920 (see Kaminski pp. 99-101) which appear to have
been built to the Type 21 design and specifications but which, for
obvious reasons, couldn't have been designated Type 21s. Helpful
though the type designations are, AC&F's use of them wasn't always
consistent and is occasionally puzzling.

As for modeling the interim cars by combining a Tichy underframe and
P2K tank, the Tichy underframe would have to be shortened to fit the
tank properly, certainly possible but not exactly a simple matter.

Richard Hendrickson


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 4, 2008, at 6:17 AM, Bruce Smith wrote:

Maybe I'm being forgetful, but was there an AC&F tank car type
intermediate between the type 17 and the type 21? (e.g. a "type 19")
<snip>
It would appear that perhaps a Tichy underframe and a P2K type 21 3
course tank might be pretty durn close..

On Apr 4, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:
<snip>
Helpful
though the type designations are, AC&F's use of them wasn't always
consistent and is occasionally puzzling.

As for modeling the interim cars by combining a Tichy underframe and
P2K tank, the Tichy underframe would have to be shortened to fit the
tank properly, certainly possible but not exactly a simple matter.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard,

Thanks! I agree about the need to slightly shorten the Tichy underframe - I compared the two at lunch and the tank is just a bit shorter. It might make a fun project and it is something to do with my surplus Tichy underframe from my USG-A conversion, now that Ted has given us the kitbash in a box for the NATX cars <G>.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#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


Richard Brennan <brennan8@...>
 

At 12:06 PM 4/4/2008, Bruce Smith wrote:
Maybe I'm being forgetful, but was there an AC&F tank car type
intermediate between the type 17 and the type 21? (e.g. a "type 19")
<sigh> It appears I have the "wrong" Kaminski book...
(AC&F Centennial History... instead of Tank Cars from AC&F ...)

This there another source of information to help distinguish between:
Type 7
Type 11
Type 17
Type 19
Type 21
...etc.


--------------------
Richard Brennan - San Leandro CA
--------------------


Tony Thompson
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Helpful though the type designations are, AC&F's use of them wasn't always consistent and is occasionally puzzling.
As Mr. Kaminski has explained, the AC&F types were a kind of default standard at any particular time, but buyers could and did purchase the underframe they wanted; and if for some reason the current standard type was not suitable for a customer's tank cars, AC&F would modify it accordingly. It was a flexible, internal standard (and for underframes only, as many people know by now, not for tanks), so to accuse AC&F of inconsistent or puzzling usage seems to me an odd observation.

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
 

On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Helpful though the type designations are, AC&F's use of them wasn't
always consistent and is occasionally puzzling.
As Mr. Kaminski has explained, the AC&F types were a kind of
default standard at any particular time, but buyers could and did
purchase the underframe they wanted; and if for some reason the
current
standard type was not suitable for a customer's tank cars, AC&F would
modify it accordingly. It was a flexible, internal standard (and for
underframes only, as many people know by now, not for tanks), so to
accuse AC&F of inconsistent or puzzling usage seems to me an odd
observation.













Point well taken. What I should have said is that, to an outside
observer, AC&F's practice doesn't always appear consistent and is
occasionally puzzling.

Richard Hendrickson