Frameless tank car questions


Dave Nelson
 

I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of questions on the frameless tank
cars used by UTLX near the start of the 20th century and google isn't
helping.

What is the proper name for this design?
Did UTLX have some sort of class name they used for these?
Any info on on long these cars might have been in interchange service (my
personal time period of interest is 1950).
And perhaps most important to me, what was a typical light weight for these
cars?

Dave Nelson


Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

Hi Dave,

It was called the Van Dyke tank car, and it was Union Tank Car's Type V. Car UTLX 15847, a 1912 Van Dyke of nominal 6,000-gallon capacity was stenciled for a light weight of 31,300 pounds. There's a photo of it (dated 1941) in Larry Kline and Ted Culotta's "The Postwar Freight Car Fleet."

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Adrian Hundhausen
 

Dave; try http://www.utlx.com/download/TankCarHistory.ppt
<http://www.utlx.com/download/TankCarHistory.ppt>

It gives a bit of info on the Van Dyke design with some photos.

Adrian Hundhausen
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of questions on the
frameless tank
cars used by UTLX near the start of the 20th century and google isn't
helping.

What is the proper name for this design?
Did UTLX have some sort of class name they used for these?
Any info on on long these cars might have been in interchange service
(my
personal time period of interest is 1950).
And perhaps most important to me, what was a typical light weight for
these
cars?

Dave Nelson


Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 20, 2009, at 12:42 PM, Dave Nelson wrote:

I'm trying to find the answer to a couple of questions on the
frameless tank
cars used by UTLX near the start of the 20th century and google isn't
helping.

What is the proper name for this design?
Did UTLX have some sort of class name they used for these?
Any info on on long these cars might have been in interchange
service (my
personal time period of interest is 1950).
And perhaps most important to me, what was a typical light weight
for these
cars?











Dave, I can add to the information Andy Sperandeo posted that some of
these cars were still in service in the early 1950s, though mostly
for non-regulatory commodities by that time, but that all were gone
by August, 1953 because of their age and the difficulty of replacing
their original K brakes with ABs, since there was no center sill to
which the new brake components could be attached.

I can add that in the early '50s UTLX 15371 had a light weight of
31600 lbs. (with a weigh date of "NEW 4 12" !).

Richard Hendrickson


Dave Nelson
 

Thanks all for the answers to my questions. Two more:

The UTLX History page has a powerpoint presentation that says only about 100
of the Type V cars were produced. 100? Could that be correct?

Was the original Type X car -- the one with the underframe -- simply a type
V that had an underframe slipped under it? As in, was everything else
pretty much the same as before? Or were the early Type X cars different in
other importamt ways?

Dave Nelson


Bruce Smith
 

On May 21, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Dave Nelson wrote:
Was the original Type X car -- the one with the underframe -- simply a type
V that had an underframe slipped under it? As in, was everything else
pretty much the same as before? Or were the early Type X cars different in
other importamt ways?
Dave,

The type V cars had reinforced bottom sheets to take the forces. These were not needed on the type X cars and so the tanks do look different... you could not simply place a type V tank on a frame and have a type X.

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


Andy Sperandeo <asperandeo@...>
 

Hi Dave,

The bottom sheet of the tank on the Van Dyke or Type V car extended past the tank head out to the end of the stub sill. Apparently this served as a form of gusset to make the connection between the tank and the bolster/stub sill casting more secure. The bottom sheet of the Type X car ended at the tank head in what came to be the conventional manner. Those are the major differences in the tank construction. The Type X introduced the center anchor, as the Powerpoint history showed, but of course there was no need for such an anchor on the Type V.

I can't comment on the number of Van Dyke cars built. Maybe Richard knows more about that.

By the way, the 1906 "Car Builder's Dictionary" includes a drawing of a 10,000-gallon Van Dyke tank car. There's no photograph, however, so I wouldn't assume that such a car was actually built.

So long,

Andy

Andy Sperandeo
Executive Editor
Model Railroader magazine
asperandeo@mrmag.com
262-796-8776, ext. 461
FAX 262-796-1142


Doug Rhodes
 

Richard Hendrickson had an article in the December 1995 Railroad Model Craftsman that you might find helpful.

In that article it says that "...about two thousand were delivered to UTL between 1903 and 1912."

HTH
Doug Rhodes

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Nelson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 8:43 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Frameless tank car questions






Thanks all for the answers to my questions. Two more:

The UTLX History page has a powerpoint presentation that says only about 100
of the Type V cars were produced. 100? Could that be correct?

Was the original Type X car -- the one with the underframe -- simply a type
V that had an underframe slipped under it? As in, was everything else
pretty much the same as before? Or were the early Type X cars different in
other importamt ways?

Dave Nelson


Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Friends,

In Henderson's CLASSIC FREIGHT CARS volume on tanks there is a photo of a 4,000 gallon UTLX tank taken in 1969. I don't have the book before me, but IIRC, the car was built in 1909 or there abouts. This particular car has an underframe. Does anyone know if these cars were built this way, or was this a retrofit to get more life out of the tank?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Doug Rhodes wrote:

Richard Hendrickson had an article in the December 1995 Railroad Model Craftsman that you might find helpful.

In that article it says that "...about two thousand were delivered to UTL between 1903 and 1912."

HTH
Doug Rhodes


Jack Burgess
 

Garth wrote:

This particular car
has an underframe. Does anyone know if these cars were built this way,
or was this a retrofit to get more life out of the tank?
They were built that way. Union Tank Car Company initially built the
frameless Type V but, according to Culotto's Steam Era Freight Cars
Reference Manual, Vol 2, "...the industry was wary of a car that did not
have center sills. Union Tank Car acquiesced to industry pressure and moved
on to the Type X design."

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Jack,

Thanks for the prompt reply. I don't have Ted's book (yet).

Does this mean that these little 4K tanks were still classed as X by UTLX? Did they have a special number (X-1, for example)?

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Jack Burgess wrote:

Garth wrote:


This particular car
has an underframe. Does anyone know if these cars were built this way,
or was this a retrofit to get more life out of the tank?
They were built that way. Union Tank Car Company initially built the
frameless Type V but, according to Culotto's Steam Era Freight Cars
Reference Manual, Vol 2, "...the industry was wary of a car that did not
have center sills. Union Tank Car acquiesced to industry pressure and moved
on to the Type X design."

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Jack Burgess wrote:
They were built that way. Union Tank Car Company initially built the frameless Type V but, according to Culotto's Steam Era Freight Cars Reference Manual, Vol 2, "...the industry was wary of a car that did not have center sills. Union Tank Car acquiesced to industry pressure and moved on to the Type X design."
This is correct, and it's interesting to note that at the time, _Railway Age_ magazine editorialized against the conservatism of the various mechanical officers on this subject, stating that there had been proven NO deficiencies in the Type V car either by experience or by calculation of stresses. BTW, I've always assumed that the "V" in Type V came from the name of Mr. Van Dyke.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Jack Burgess
 

Garth wrote:
Does this mean that these little 4K tanks were still classed as X by
UTLX? Did they have a special number (X-1, for example)?
You are getting out of the limit of my knowledge (let alone expertise) but
they were 6,000 gallon tanks AFAIK and the X-3s came after the X class which
introduced the center sill design. I have a special interest in the V tank
cars since a YV brakeman told me that tank cars in the upper area of the
railroad in the Merced River Canyon were typically Van Dyke tank cars...

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Dave Nelson
 

By the way, the 1906 "Car Builder's Dictionary" includes a drawing of
a 10,000-gallon Van Dyke tank car. There's no photograph, however, so
I wouldn't assume that such a car was actually built.
No use looking at an early ORER... I glanced at a 1924 volume and there was
just a single line w/ 33,055 cars.

Thanks Andy, for mentioning the 1906 CBD... I'll look up the dwg. To all, a
drawing of the X-3 design can be found in the 1919 CBD.

Dave Nelson


Richard Hendrickson
 

On May 21, 2009, at 9:30 AM, Doug Rhodes wrote:

Richard Hendrickson had an article in the December 1995 Railroad
Model Craftsman that you might find helpful.

In that article it says that "...about two thousand were delivered
to UTL between 1903 and 1912."






I will add that, according to the January, 1952 UTL live list, 75 of
those cars were still active as standard gauge cars, apart from the
cars that had been converted to narrow gauge for service on the D&RG
NG lines in Colorado and New Mexico (some of which lasted for years
after the ARR mandated AB brakes on cars in interchange, since the NG
cars didn't operate in interchange). The numbers of the standard
gauge cars still in service at that date were: 15499, 55226, 55284,
55240, 55241, 55265, 55336, and 58332-58399. I infer from the data
in the live list that the cars with the 55xxx numbers were ex-narrow
gauge cars which had been converted back to standard gauge. Perhaps
I should emphasize that NO V class (or, for that matter, X class)
UTLX cars were built new as narrow gauge cars; all were converted
from standard gauge cars in the 1920s and '30s. I make a point of
this because a narrow gauge foamer once said to me, after the article
cited above appeared, that he thought all of the class V cars were
originally narrow gauge and had assumed the standard gauge Class Vs
were converted from NG cars.

Richard Hendrickson


earlyrail
 

Another design for the frameless tank car was by Bettendorf.
How many they built is unknown, but they did build one cutaway version to show a connecting "tube" for strength. (no quit an internal frame)

Howard Garner


John Hile
 

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

The numbers of the standard
gauge cars still in service at that date were: 15499, 55226, 55284,
55240, 55241, 55265, 55336, and 58332-58399. I infer from the data
in the live list that the cars with the 55xxx numbers were ex-narrow
gauge cars which had been converted back to standard gauge.











Richard,

Thanks very much for sharing this info!

John Hile
Blacksburg, VA


Tim O'Connor
 

and here's a link from an old email to UTLX 55136

http://216.94.16.48/people/index_choice.cfm?id=129&photoid=400748160

I will add that, according to the January, 1952 UTL live list, 75 of
those cars were still active as standard gauge cars, apart from the
cars that had been converted to narrow gauge for service on the D&RG
NG lines in Colorado and New Mexico (some of which lasted for years
after the ARR mandated AB brakes on cars in interchange, since the NG
cars didn't operate in interchange). The numbers of the standard
gauge cars still in service at that date were: 15499, 55226, 55284,
55240, 55241, 55265, 55336, and 58332-58399. I infer from the data
in the live list that the cars with the 55xxx numbers were ex-narrow
gauge cars which had been converted back to standard gauge. Perhaps
I should emphasize that NO V class (or, for that matter, X class)
UTLX cars were built new as narrow gauge cars; all were converted
from standard gauge cars in the 1920s and '30s. I make a point of
this because a narrow gauge foamer once said to me, after the article
cited above appeared, that he thought all of the class V cars were
originally narrow gauge and had assumed the standard gauge Class Vs
were converted from NG cars.

Richard Hendrickson