Date
1 - 14 of 14
spring Plankless truck help
|
Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
I need an opinion and I know I'll get one from the list :-). I'm going
through my box of trucks to try to organize it, and I have a variety of Spring-plankless trucks. I have P2k/Walthers spring plankless trucks, Tahoe Model Works double truss trucks IM ASF spring planless trucks with 5 x9 bearing size cast on the sideframe. Branchline Barber S2A Do all these trucks represent the same spring plankless truck? I can tell the difference between spring plank and spring plankless trucks, but other than the Barber S2a I can't really see a difference between the trucks. The better detailing and molding on the TMW is obvious but I am more interested if these three represent different trucks or are they similar enough to be interchangeable(at least in HO scale) Brian J Carlson P.E. Cheektowaga NY
|
|
|
|
sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
Brian: I wish I were more expert on this matter myself but among the differences to notice in these trucks consider the shape of the journal boxes and the shape of the journal lids. All these trucks you are mentioning are different in these areas. To add to the excitement and/or confusion, there is also the TMW Buckeye 50 ton ARA truck. I have more questions than answers myself. I just try to compare photos of the car I am building with the trucks on hand and hope I am coming close. That's one reason I have a drawer full of trucks. The grand kids are going to have fun with that drawer some day!
Stephan Parachuk Toronto
|
|
|
|
leakinmywaders
Brian and Stephan: Richard Hendrickson or Tahoe's Brian Leppert will likely weigh in, but when I asked Brian some time ago whether the Tahoe spring plankless double truss truck represented the same prototype as the Proto2000 spring plankless truck, he told me yes. I don't know for certain how specific he meant to be in that answer, however (or how specific he understood my question to be), so I'm also curious to hear more on this. The only apparent intentional differences between these 2 trucks to my eye are that 1) they might be tooled represent different journal box lid designs, and 2) the appearance of the doubled trusses; the latter is lacking altogether on the Proto2000 trucks. Of course the fidelity to detail on the Tahoe trucks is especially outstanding, so I had wondered whether the doubled truss was a matter of tooling sophistication or rather of the P2K truck possibly representing a single-truss design.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Chris Frissell Polson, MT
--- In STMFC@..., "sparachuk" <sparachuk@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
--- In STMFC@..., "sparachuk" <sparachuk@...> wrote:
Steve, Journal lids were often not manufactured by the foundry that cast the trucks, but were a specialty onto themselves. Different railroads could, and did, order different style lids. In later years it was not uncommon to see a mix of styles on the same car, even on the same truck, especially on cars in work service. The journal BOXES, however, are part of the side frame casting, and should be the same. Differences likely arise from different placement of the parting line for the model part, and different theories of how much draft angle is needed in the mold. Dennis
|
|
|
|
Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "leakinmywaders" <leakinmywaders@...> wrote:
<snip> ... they might be tooled represent different journal box lid designs, ... <snip>The freight bills of materials I have seen show that the railroads specified journal box lids as a separate item. That means, I believe, that the same truck side frame might have one style journal box lid on railroad ABC while the same truck side frame might have an entirely different journal box lid on railroad XYZ. Journal box lids were interchangeable. A given size journal box required a journal box lid of the corresponding size but each journal box lid manufacturer made their journal box lids in a range of sizes. I have seen freight car trucks with several different journal box lids. It would be an interesting, but perhaps really hard to see, modeling detail to be able to swap journal box lids on our model freight car trucks. I can envision truck side frames without journal box lids and a sprue of a variety of lids which the modeler could attach in a mix or match fashion. Gene Green
|
|
|
|
Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
I need to learn to read all the messages before responding to any message. Much of what I said below was said [written] sooner and better by Dennis Storzek in message 81036.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I apologize for re-plowing the same field. Gene Green
--- In STMFC@..., "Gene Green" <bierglaeser@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Jon Miller <atsf@...>
I can envision truck side frames without journal box lids and a sprue of a variety of lids which the modeler could attach in a mix or match fashion.<Remember that Tichy makes a truck with separate journal box lids. Only one type came with the truck but it has been done. While I think that Tahoe's Brian Leppert makes the best trucks available, styrene with inserts is another way to go. This would allow separate lids. Jon Miller AT&SF For me time has stopped in 1941 Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user NMRA Life member #2623 Member SFRH&MS
|
|
|
|
Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
Gene,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Great idea. Grandt Line does this with some of their O-scale narrow gauge trucks. So why not in HO? Kind regards, Garth G. Groff Gene Green wrote:
... I have seen freight car trucks with several different journal box lids. It would be an interesting, but perhaps really hard to see, modeling detail to be able to swap journal box lids on our model freight car trucks. I can envision truck side frames without journal box lids and a sprue of a variety of lids which the modeler could attach in a mix or match fashion.
|
|
|
|
Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
The P2K and TMW, as well as "bettendorf" trucks from Kadee and Tichy, are all attempts at replicating the "Self-Aligning, Spring Plankless Double Truss Truck" as developed by the Associated Truck Manufacturers.
The prototype truck that I worked from had a prominent double truss rib. However, looking at photos, it seems that on some trucks that raised rib was pretty subtle. So P2K's lack of the double truss feature might be forgiven, but the truck still suffers from oversized journal boxes and undersize springs. The prototype for InterMountain's truck was a normal U-section side frame. The distintive feature on IM's are the triangular "ears" to either side of the bolster on the side frame face, representing a truck with column liners. I only know of Santa Fe and B&O having freight car trucks with liners. Brian Leppert Tahoe Model Works Carson City, NV
|
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Apr 12, 2009, at 6:35 PM, Brian J Carlson wrote:
I have P2k/Walthers spring plankless trucks, I'll start with a little history. In the early 1930s, at a time when the railway appliance industry was suffering from the worst effects of the economic depression, a consortium was established to improve the design of freight car trucks. Ten major manufacturers of trucks formed an Engineers Mechanical Committee which developed the self- aligning spring-plankless truck, a concept described in detail in the 1937 and later Car Builders' Cyclopedias. The use of this innovation was then administered by The Board of Trustees under the Four wheel Railway Truck Agreement. Essentially, the concept consisted of an interlocking arrangement of side frame, bolster, and spring package which kept the truck in alignment without the need for a spring plank below the bolster. This concept was adopted by all the members of the consortium, but with each company developing its own version, there was no single self-aligning spring-plankless design. Though the trucks that resulted more or less resembled each other, there was considerable variation in side frame and bolster configurations and spring arrangements, including the fact that some side frames were double truss (i.e., with boxed-in lower chords) and others not, and some trucks had a combination of coil and elliptical leaf springs. Things were further complicated by the fact that the concept was employed in both fifty and seventy ton capacity trucks (and some higher capacity trucks as well), and also in spring-plankless versions of trucks with built-in bolster snubbers such as the Barber S-2 and ASF A-3. The short answer to your question, then, is that all of the HO scale trucks you mention, and a number of others as well, represent somewhat different versions of the self-aligning spring-plankless truck, and there were, of course, many other slightly different versions for which there are no HO scale equivalents. So what's a modeler to do? Stephan Parachuk posted the answer: stock every decent set of truck frames you can find, compare them to photos of the car you're modeling, and choose the one that is closest in appearance. Richard Hendrickson
|
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Richard Hendrickson wrote (in part):
. . . there was no single self-aligning spring-plankless design. Though the trucks that resulted more or less resembled each other, there was considerable variation in side frame and bolster configurations and spring arrangements, including the fact that some side frames were double truss (i.e., with boxed-in lower chords) and others not.This is exactly right, and the part about side frame shape in particular deserves emphasis. Examination of a few Cyc volumes will quickly show that trucks which were manufactured under the Four Wheel Railway Truck Agreement by different foundries, while mechanically similar and dimensionally identical in some critical areas, DID vary, sometimes substantially, in the shape of the sideframe itself. Since we modelers tend to look at the whole sideframe as the main part of the truck, this means that the elements of commonality in design are NOT very helpful in matching model trucks to the prototype. I'll echo Richard's endorsement of Stephan Parachuk's approach: stock lotsa model trucks and carefully compare them to photos of the prototype you're matching. 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
|
|
|
|
Mark
I will have to agree with all of these great ideas and an excellent question. I still have older sprung trucks on some rolling stock(if it runs do not fool with it). One set has the top of the truck not arched a extremely as others!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
And I have a two lone Andrews which looks different than others. Mark Morgan
--- On Mon, 4/13/09, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> Subject: Re: [STMFC] spring Plankless truck help To: STMFC@... Date: Monday, April 13, 2009, 4:00 PM Richard Hendrickson wrote (in part): . . . there was no single self-aligning spring-plankless design. Though the trucks that resulted more or less resembled each other, there was considerable variation in side frame and bolster configurations and spring arrangements, including the fact that some side frames were double truss (i.e., with boxed-in lower chords) and others not. This is exactly right, and the part about side frame shape in particular deserves emphasis. Examination of a few Cyc volumes will quickly show that trucks which were manufactured under the Four Wheel Railway Truck Agreement by different foundries, while mechanically similar and dimensionally identical in some critical areas, DID vary, sometimes substantially, in the shape of the sideframe itself. Since we modelers tend to look at the whole sideframe as the main part of the truck, this means that the elements of commonality in design are NOT very helpful in matching model trucks to the prototype. I'll echo Richard's endorsement of Stephan Parachuk's approach: stock lotsa model trucks and carefully compare them to photos of the prototype you're matching. 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@signaturep ress.com Publishers of books on railroad history [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Brian Leppert <b.leppert@...>
I have to respectfully disagree.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 11:05 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] spring Plankless truck help The 1937 CBC had a two page ad and the 1940 edition had a four page ad, placed by the "Board of Trustees under the Four Wheel Railway Truck Agreement", for "Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss Trucks". These two ads well describe and illustrate this truck. This design was developed by the Engineers' Mechanical Committee of the Associated Truck Manufacturers. The use of this innovation was then administered by The Board of Trustees under the Four wheelThe most important feature of this truck was the ablility of the side frames to go OUT of alignment (or square) to reduce flange wear in curved track. Because of this movement, the spring plank had to be eliminated. It was the springs that brought the side frames back into alignment. This concept was adopted by all the members of the consortium, but with each company developing its own version,Since "Double Truss" is a part of this truck's name, I have to assume that they were all double truss. The area of the side frame below the spring seat was a box section, but the lower chords were mostly open on the bottom, at least on the trucks I've looked at. Looking at all the drawings and illustrations in CBCs of Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss trucks, I feel that there is a great similarity between them, with only minor variations in details between manufacturers' offerings. and some trucks had a combination of coil and elliptical leaf springs.Drawings in CBCs show 40, 50 and 70-ton trucks. I'm sure that larger capacity trucks could have been built. Although these drawings include a variety of spring packages, options also included different spring spacings and more springs. and also in spring-plankless versions of trucks with built-in bolster snubbers such as the BarberI have never found evidence of S-2 or A-3 trucks that were Self-Aligning. (Please note that I am using this term as a proper noun. I still believe that "Self-Aligning" only pertains to this truck design with its concave/convex side frame/bolster surfaces). Because of the spring activated wedges (snubbers), I doubt it would work anyway. The Self-Aligning design seems to be an evolutionary dead end. Southern Pacific tried these trucks on a few prewar car orders, but never again. UP went even further and soon retofitted spring planks to some cars. 1940 saw UP's last order of box cars, the B-50-27 class, equipped with Self-Aligning Spring Plankless Double Truss trucks, but delivered with spring planks! On the other hand, DT&I bought new box cars in 1949 with these trucks, and, of course, equipped with their favored Coil-Elliptic springs. So what's a modeler to do? Stephan Parachuk posted the answer: stock everyI agree. Brian Leppert Tahoe Model Works Carson City, NV
|
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Apr 13, 2009, at 5:36 PM, Brian Leppert wrote:
...Essentially, the concept consisted of anplank It's not clear to me that there's a significant difference between my account and Brian's; the point is that the trucks were self-aligning (on straight track) without the use of a spring plank.
The double truss feature wasn't an inherent part of the self-aligning spring-plankless truck design, as demonstrated by the fact that many trucks were made with double truss side frames which weren't self- aligning spring-plankless trucks and had spring planks. However, on reviewing the material in the CBCycs and the many truck photos in my collection, it appears that Brian is right that self-aligning spring- plankless trucks were consistently manufactured with double truss side frames.
True up to a point. However, as Tony Thompson pointed out, side frame configurations varied quite a bit, and from a modeler's perspective that's the most important feature of a truck since it what's most visible when the model is on the track. Side frame shapes were often different enough that one can't regard model trucks representing self-aligning spring-plankless trucks as being interchangeable. Richard Hendrickson
|
|
|