FGEX in MR


Steve and Barb Hile
 

I was interested to see the plans and detailed photos of the FGEX car in the July MR.

BUT, I was disappointed that they did not include a picture, either vintage or recent, of the car or car type that was the subject of the plans. It is nice to have the detail photos, but why no full side, end or roof views?

Also, from my limited drafting understanding, the section view that shows the AB valve mounting shows that appliance on the wrong side of the center sill. The full underframe plan and the detail photos show it on the opposite side of the center sill from the cylinder and reservoir.

A question for Bill Welch: Did the subject car, 50220, keep its number when it received its metal roof, while a fair number of its 1927 brethern were being rebuilt into the 57000 series?

Thanks,
Steve Hile


Charles Morrill
 

Thanks for the heads up on the article in MR. This is the first MR I've found a reason to purchase in awhile. I hope they do some more detailed articles like this on preserved steam era cars.

The section view with the AB valve appears to have been mirrored. Probably not the draftsman's doing.
Charlie

----- Original Message -----

I was interested to see the plans and detailed photos of the FGEX car in the July MR.

BUT, I was disappointed that they did not include a picture, either vintage or recent, of the car or car type that was the subject of the plans. It is nice to have the detail photos, but why no full side, end or roof views?

Also, from my limited drafting understanding, the section view that shows the AB valve mounting shows that appliance on the wrong side of the center sill. The full underframe plan and the detail photos show it on the opposite side of the center sill from the cylinder and reservoir.

A question for Bill Welch: Did the subject car, 50220, keep its number when it received its metal roof, while a fair number of its 1927 brethern were being rebuilt into the 57000 series?

Thanks,
Steve Hile


Bruce Smith
 

On Sat, June 13, 2009 9:34 am, Charles Morrill wrote:
Thanks for the heads up on the article in MR. This is the first MR I've
found a reason to purchase in awhile. I hope they do some more detailed
articles like this on preserved steam era cars.
Charles,

I was disappointed to see that the history of this car was basically
ignored. Built as a clone of the 1927 cars, the measurements shown in the
drawing indicate that it was rebuilt to the 12' 11" eave height at some
point. However, I was happy to see the underframe agrees with the photos
I have of the FGE reefer at the B&O museum, indicating that the underbody
arrangement of the IM model is most likely incorrect, or reflects an
unusual version.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Donald B. Valentine <riverman_vt@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

I was disappointed to see that the history of this car was basically
ignored. Built as a clone of the 1927 cars, the measurements shown
in the drawing indicate that it was rebuilt to the 12' 11" eave
height at some point. However, I was happy to see the underframe
agrees with the photos I have of the FGE reefer at the B&O museum,
indicating that the underbody arrangement of the IM model is most
likely incorrect, or reflects an unusual version.

You have good reason to wonder if the IM model might be incorrect based upon past experience, Bruce. IM's GPEX milk tank car is grossly incorrect in the slope of the roof and the curvature where it rolls over the tops of the sides, a fact that was pointed out to them with the pre-production test shots but never corrected. Some manufacturers still show little interest in accuracy. At least with the underframe it is out of sight if one doesn't wish to correct it. That's hard to do with the roof issue. I'd probably own about twenty of the IM milk car had it been done correctly but have settled with about half that number from Overland in a fleet of 45 milk cars.

Don Valentine


Jack Mullen
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

I was disappointed to see that the history of this car was basically
ignored. Built as a clone of the 1927 cars, the measurements shown in the
drawing indicate that it was rebuilt to the 12' 11" eave height at some
point.
Are you sure? Bill Welch's monograph and ORER entries indicate that the rebuilt cars were renumbered into the 57000-59999 series. The drawings are based on 50220, still bearing its original number. The eave height isn't called out on the MR drawing, but it scales about 12'8". The running board height is dimensioned 13' 4 1/4" vs. 13' 3 5/8" in the drawing reproduced in the 1931 Cyc. I think the small difference is consistent with the change to a steel roof and steel running board, but not enough to allow a 3" increase in the carbody height.


However, I was happy to see the underframe agrees with the photos
I have of the FGE reefer at the B&O museum, indicating that the underbody
arrangement of the IM model is most likely incorrect, or reflects an
unusual version.
I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the really odd thing in the MR drawing - the two-level floor shown in the cross-sections. I think this must be an error from misinterpreting what was seen from underneath. The original underframe (per Cyc.drawing) shows flooring supported on wood stringers, 7" deep stringers resting on the side sills and crossbearers, and 3 to 4" deep stringers above the center sills. The dimensions are different because the top of the crossbearers and side sills is a few inches below the top of the centersills.

The MR drawing shows this construction from the side stringer to the middle stringer, and a lower floor section in the center, at the height of the center sill. The underbody photos do appear to show lower flooring in the area between the middle stringers.

Obviously, a floor with a stepped-down section would be impractical.

I suspect that the prototype has had subflooring added between the stringers during some rebuilding, perhaps to provide space for additional insulation. The original, true floor would remain above the stringers. Sometime later, the portion of subflooring between the side stringer and middle stringer was removed, but the part from the middle stringer to the centersill remains. The photos and drawings show strips, approx. 2"x4" along the sides of the stringers which would have been added to support the subfloor.

I know my description won't make any sense without reffering to the drawings in MR, and may not anyway. ;)

Any other thoughts?

Jack


Bruce Smith
 

On Sun, June 21, 2009 8:17 pm, Jack Mullen wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Bruce Smith" <smithbf@...> wrote:

I was disappointed to see that the history of this car was basically
ignored. Built as a clone of the 1927 cars, the measurements shown in
the
drawing indicate that it was rebuilt to the 12' 11" eave height at some
point.
Are you sure? Bill Welch's monograph and ORER entries indicate that the
rebuilt cars were renumbered into the 57000-59999 series. The drawings are
based on 50220, still bearing its original number. The eave height isn't
called out on the MR drawing, but it scales about 12'8". The running board
height is dimensioned 13' 4 1/4" vs. 13' 3 5/8" in the drawing reproduced
in the 1931 Cyc. I think the small difference is consistent with the
change to a steel roof and steel running board, but not enough to allow a
3" increase in the carbody height.
Jack,

Oops <G> You're right of course. I was looking at the wrong measurements!
The car was rebuilt post WWII, as seen by the "rivet plates" on the side
sill, but it looks like it kept its original height, or close to it.

I'm surprised that nobody has commented on the really odd thing in the MR
drawing - the two-level floor shown in the cross-sections.
I wonder if that is an attempt to show the floor grates?

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL