a GATX prototype for SC&F tanks?


Robert kirkham
 

I'm thinking about the modelling options for the SC&F tank car offerings. I've at least one Standard Tank car in private ownership paint and lettering I can justify, but I'm hoping to find more generic uses for these models. Just wondering about the 6000 gallon and 8000 gallon cars (or any of the others projected) from Southern Car & Foundry as possible matches to any of the cars purchased over the years (second hand I imagine) by GATX?

As has been explained on this list a few times by those of you who have really studied the subject, the GATX fleet was in part comprised of many the tank cars of many other smaller companies through acquisitions (both corporate purchases and purchase of assets alone?) made by the company. I also vaguely understand that most of this had happened into the thirties so that by the time I model (1946) it was largely done. It is also evident that a certain number of the cars they took over were Standard Tank car designs, similar to the models now about to come on lien from Southern car & Foundry.

As a result, is there any broader collection of evidence to justify numbering each of the varieties of cars offered by SC&F into GATX lettering? Are number series available. I can't see using specialty service cars like Kellogg's for my modeling north of the border in Vancouver, so would like to hear about the more generic GATX fleet.....

thanks in advance,

Rob Kirkham


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Nov 11, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Rob Kirkham wrote:

I'm thinking about the modelling options for the SC&F tank car
offerings.
I've at least one Standard Tank car in private ownership paint and
lettering
I can justify, but I'm hoping to find more generic uses for these
models.
Just wondering about the 6000 gallon and 8000 gallon cars (or any
of the
others projected) from Southern Car & Foundry as possible matches
to any of
the cars purchased over the years (second hand I imagine) by GATX?







When GATC acquired the George Woodsmith holdings in 1928, they got
not only the STC plant at Sharon, PA but also the Standard Tank Car
Co.'s STCX leasing fleet as well as the Quaker City Tank Line, and
in later years they took over a variety of STC cars from private
owners who sold their tank car fleets to General American. I have
numerous photos of STC cars after they were absorbed into the GATX
fleet.

Richard Hendrickson


Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

Rob,
Don't forget that GATX acquired Standard Tank Car in 1928. Whether
this was GATX's only tank car manufacturing facility or one among
several I can't say but, at least for a while, GATX would have been the
manufacturer of tank cars to Standard's designs. It is quite likely
they would have manufacturered "Standard" tank cars for their own fleet.
(GATX manufacturered tank cars in Chicago in earlier years.)

Gene Green


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Gene Green wrote:

Rob,
Don't forget that GATX acquired Standard Tank Car in 1928. Whether
this was GATX's only tank car manufacturing facility or one among
several I can't say but, at least for a while, GATX would have been
the
manufacturer of tank cars to Standard's designs. It is quite likely
they would have manufacturered "Standard" tank cars for their own
fleet.
(GATX manufacturered tank cars in Chicago in earlier years.)








At the time GATC acquired STC and its large, modern plant in Sharon,
PA, GATC was building new tank cars both at East Chicago, IN and
Warren, OH. Photographic evidence indicates that the shift in
manufacturing tank cars to the Sharon works took place fairly rapidly
and that the STC designs were discontinued almost immediately, though
as late as 1930 some cars of GATC design were stenciled as being
built by STC (i.e., at Sharon rather than East Chicago or Warren).
Apparently GATC did not purchase (or build) new tank cars of STC
design for its own fleet, but with the purchase of STC it acquired
STC's own leasing fleet, operated as the Standard Transit Co., which
numbered more that 2,800 cars in 1928. Subsequently GATC acquired
many additional STC cars when it purchased and leased back the tank
cars of various petroleum companies (e.g. Texaco, Phillips) and other
private owners (e.g., Quaker City Tank Line, Pennsylvania-Conley Tank
Car Co.) GATC's East Chicago and Warren plants continued to repair
and maintain tank cars, and of course East Chicago had expanded in
the 1920s to become the location where GATC built many new cars of
other types. Much if this information is covered in Ralph C.
Epstein, GATX: A History of the General American Transportation
Corporation, 1898-1948 (New York, North River Press, 1948).

Richard Hendrickson


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
At the time GATC acquired STC and its large, modern plant in Sharon, PA, GATC was building new tank cars both at East Chicago, IN and Warren, OH.
It's worth observing that the town centers of Warren, OH and Sharon, PA are less than 15 miles apart, separated of course by the state line, and today are not far from being a single city.

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


Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Rob Kirkham" <rdkirkham@...> wrote:

I'm thinking about the modelling options for the SC&F tank car
offerings.
I've at least one Standard Tank car in private ownership paint and
lettering
I can justify, but I'm hoping to find more generic uses for these
models.
Just wondering about the 6000 gallon and 8000 gallon cars (or any of
the
others projected) from Southern Car & Foundry as possible matches to
any of
the cars purchased over the years (second hand I imagine) by GATX?

As has been explained on this list a few times by those of you who have
really studied the subject, the GATX fleet was in part comprised of
many the
tank cars of many other smaller companies through acquisitions (both
corporate purchases and purchase of assets alone?) made by the
company. I
also vaguely understand that most of this had happened into the
thirties so
that by the time I model (1946) it was largely done. It is also
evident
that a certain number of the cars they took over were Standard Tank car
designs, similar to the models now about to come on lien from
Southern car &
Foundry.

As a result, is there any broader collection of evidence to justify
numbering each of the varieties of cars offered by SC&F into GATX
lettering?
Are number series available. I can't see using specialty service
cars like
Kellogg's for my modeling north of the border in Vancouver, so would
like to
hear about the more generic GATX fleet.....

thanks in advance,

Rob Kirkham
Rob,

On the SC&F website the prototype photo for the 2 compartment tank is
GATX 1638 in a nice, basic black with white lettering.

The radial course tank prototype photo is (I think it's the 8K) NATX
759, also in basic black with white lettering.

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA


Schuyler Larrabee
 

You can look at the book Richard referenced here:

<http://books.google.com/books?id=fE8LUZD_5PMC&pg=PP11&dq=Ralph+C.+Epstein,+GATX:+A+History+of+the+G
eneral+American+Transportation+Corporation,+1898-1948+(New+York,+North+River+Press,+1948)&lr=#PPA176
,M1>


SGL

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 1:41 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: a GATX prototype for SC&F tanks?

On Nov 12, 2008, at 7:26 AM, Gene Green wrote:

Rob,
Don't forget that GATX acquired Standard Tank Car in 1928. Whether
this was GATX's only tank car manufacturing facility or one among
several I can't say but, at least for a while, GATX would have been
the
manufacturer of tank cars to Standard's designs. It is quite likely
they would have manufacturered "Standard" tank cars for their own
fleet.
(GATX manufacturered tank cars in Chicago in earlier years.)
At the time GATC acquired STC and its large, modern plant in Sharon,
PA, GATC was building new tank cars both at East Chicago, IN and
Warren, OH. Photographic evidence indicates that the shift in
manufacturing tank cars to the Sharon works took place fairly rapidly
and that the STC designs were discontinued almost immediately, though
as late as 1930 some cars of GATC design were stenciled as being
built by STC (i.e., at Sharon rather than East Chicago or Warren).
Apparently GATC did not purchase (or build) new tank cars of STC
design for its own fleet, but with the purchase of STC it acquired
STC's own leasing fleet, operated as the Standard Transit Co., which
numbered more that 2,800 cars in 1928. Subsequently GATC acquired
many additional STC cars when it purchased and leased back the tank
cars of various petroleum companies (e.g. Texaco, Phillips) and other
private owners (e.g., Quaker City Tank Line, Pennsylvania-Conley Tank
Car Co.) GATC's East Chicago and Warren plants continued to repair
and maintain tank cars, and of course East Chicago had expanded in
the 1920s to become the location where GATC built many new cars of
other types. Much if this information is covered in Ralph C.
Epstein, GATX: A History of the General American Transportation
Corporation, 1898-1948 (New York, North River Press, 1948).

Richard Hendrickson






Robert kirkham
 

Not in Canada I'm afraid. Basically, Google books doesn't allow Canadian addresses to download out of copyright books. Its been the case with numerous other very interesting volumes that are mentioned on this list from time to time.

Meanwhile, thanks to Richard and so many others for the info on the Standard tank component of the GATX fleet. A friend (part of the local tank car fraternity) has ordered a hard copy of Epstein's book, so I'll be working out how to borrow it some time soon.

A follow up question: where we have a photo of a car in a given GATX number series, is it likely that all or most other cars in the series are of the same design?

Also, I think I have heard the Standard Tank bolster/saddle part described as a diaphragm. Maybe I'm wrong about that - its a vague memory. Any comments on the unique (I perceive) design used by Standard and the correct nomenclature for it?

Rob Kirkham


--------------------------------------------------
From: "Schuyler Larrabee" <schuyler.larrabee@...>
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:57 PM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: a GATX prototype for SC&F tanks?

You can look at the book Richard referenced here:

<http://books.google.com/books?id=fE8LUZD_5PMC&pg=PP11&dq=Ralph+C.+Epstein,+GATX:+A+History+of+the+G
eneral+American+Transportation+Corporation,+1898-1948+(New+York,+North+River+Press,+1948)&lr=#PPA176
,M1>


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Rob Kirkham wrote:
Also, I think I have heard the Standard Tank bolster/saddle part described as a diaphragm. Maybe I'm wrong about that - its a vague memory. Any comments on the unique (I perceive) design used by Standard and the correct nomenclature for it?
Rob, it's a distinctive and even signature appearance, unmistakable as a Standard Tank design, but functionally not unlike other builders' designs, as a combined bolster and tank saddle. I've never heard it called a "diaphragm."

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


Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

I am not familiar with the particular design in question, but when researching Type 21 tank cars, the correct nomenclature for the support at the center underside of the tank was "saddle" and the supports above the bolsters were "cradles". The tank was attached to the saddle and rested on the cradles, thus allowing for expansion.
Larry Grubb

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
Rob Kirkham wrote:
Also, I think I have heard the Standard Tank bolster/saddle part
described as a diaphragm. Maybe I'm wrong about that - its a vague
memory. Any comments on the unique (I perceive) design used by
Standard and the correct nomenclature for it?
Rob, it's a distinctive and even signature appearance,
unmistakable as a Standard Tank design, but functionally not unlike
other builders' designs, as a combined bolster and tank saddle. I've
never heard it called a "diaphragm."

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 Nov 12, 2008, at 10:08 PM, Rob Kirkham wrote:

A follow up question: where we have a photo of a car in a given
GATX number
series, is it likely that all or most other cars in the series are
of the
same design?




Alas, no. GATC's ORER entries consisted, for the most part, of large
number series within which were cars of many different types, sizes,
and builders. GATC was in the habit of renumbering cars whenever
they were re-leased or their assigned service changed. Photos offer
the only real assurance about car numbers; if you don't have photos,
break out your old Ouija board.

Richard Hendrickson


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Larry Grubb wrote:
I am not familiar with the particular design in question, but when researching Type 21 tank cars, the correct nomenclature for the support at the center underside of the tank was "saddle" and the supports above the bolsters were "cradles". The tank was attached to the saddle and rested on the cradles, thus allowing for expansion.
No, the center support is a tank anchor and has been since at least World War I (see any Cyc issue). Though the sliding support at the bolster is indeed often called a cradle, it is equally defined (see any Cyc issue) as a saddle -- see definition entries under "tank saddle," etc.

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


Robert kirkham
 

OK - thanks for that. I used the word in conversation last weekend with a friend and got a strange look, so thought there must be a disconnect...

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@...>
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 10:47 AM
To: <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: a GATX prototype for SC&F tanks?

Rob Kirkham wrote:
Also, I think I have heard the Standard Tank bolster/saddle part
described as a diaphragm. Maybe I'm wrong about that - its a vague
memory. Any comments on the unique (I perceive) design used by
Standard and the correct nomenclature for it?
Rob, it's a distinctive and even signature appearance,
unmistakable as a Standard Tank design, but functionally not unlike
other builders' designs, as a combined bolster and tank saddle. I've
never heard it called a "diaphragm."

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


Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

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

Rob Kirkham wrote:
Also, I think I have heard the Standard Tank bolster/saddle part
described as a diaphragm. Maybe I'm wrong about that - its a vague
memory. Any comments on the unique (I perceive) design used by
Standard and the correct nomenclature for it?
Rob, it's a distinctive and even signature appearance,
unmistakable as a Standard Tank design, but functionally not unlike
other builders' designs, as a combined bolster and tank saddle. I've
never heard it called a "diaphragm."

Tony Thompson
Is it too late for me to chime in here? "Diaphragm" is a fabricator's
term, possibly now archaic, for a web that spaces structural members.
Used in this manner, any built-up bolster consists of four pressed
steel diaphragms, top and bottom cover plates, a center filler and
possibly end fillers. The usage of the term is correct, but hardly
unique to the Standard Tank Car Co. bolsters.

Dennis


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Is it too late for me to chime in here? "Diaphragm" is a fabricator's term, possibly now archaic, for a web that spaces structural members. Used in this manner, any built-up bolster consists of four pressed steel diaphragms, top and bottom cover plates, a center filler and possibly end fillers. The usage of the term is correct, but hardly unique to the Standard Tank Car Co. bolsters.
So if I understand your comment, Dennis, a bolster built up of pieces called diaphragms can be called a "diaphragm." By the same logic, since it's riveted together with rivets, I can call it a "rivet" also. I would suggest that this example of calling the whole by the name of some of its parts is NOT a very sound usage and certainly risks being misleading.

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


Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...>
 

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

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Is it too late for me to chime in here? "Diaphragm" is a fabricator's
term, possibly now archaic, for a web that spaces structural members.
Used in this manner, any built-up bolster consists of four pressed
steel diaphragms, top and bottom cover plates, a center filler and
possibly end fillers. The usage of the term is correct, but hardly
unique to the Standard Tank Car Co. bolsters.
So if I understand your comment, Dennis, a bolster built up of
pieces called diaphragms can be called a "diaphragm." By the same
logic, since it's riveted together with rivets, I can call it a "rivet"
also. I would suggest that this example of calling the whole by the
name of some of its parts is NOT a very sound usage and certainly risks
being misleading.

Tony Thompson
Thank you, Tony, for the lesson in semantics. I'll be sure to keep it
in mind.

However, you make my point. I'm sure Rob is recalling a period trade
press description that said something to the effect, "… the design of
the bolster is a diaphragm…" I simply pointed out that while the term
is correct in this context, it is no more useful in distinguishing it
than saying the bolster is riveted.

Dennis


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
However, you make my point. I'm sure Rob is recalling a period trade
press description that said something to the effect, "… the design of
the bolster is a diaphragm…"
I concede defeat, being unable to produce a quotation that might
have occurred.

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