1. Topics
  2. Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Bill Welch
 

I was struck by how frustrated I was in my comments about the Kadee
offset twin and I hope I did not offend anyone by my initial email on
this subject. I went back to some notes I had made to myself about
it's potential for me in what I want to model. This helped me
remember the various details of the major groups of car "looks" which
in turn reminded me of why this offering is so frustrating to me. I
also looked back at all of Ed Hawkins' very authoritative series of
articles in the RP CYC to remind me of the various differences and
major owner railroads. In Part I he notes that there were "more than
127,000 33-foot interior length 2-bay offset twins were built." This
number includes the AAR Standard, the AAR Alternate Standard, and the
nonstandard cars.

So far, Kadee has done cars for 13 railroads, representing 16,926
cars or 13.32% of the cars built from 1934 through 1960. The B&O
owned 21,300 cars that pretty well match, if not exactly match the
Kadee model. One issue is that 14,000 of the B&O cars had the Duryea
underframe. While I can understand Kadee not creating the tooling for
a system used by only one railroad, I find it quite strange that they
have not done a model representing one of the 7,300 B&O cars without
the Duryea! While it is nice to have a model of a NYC car, their
1,000 cars seem like a small number of cars when compared to the
numbers owned by the B&O. (My authority for this is Kadee's website
that shows examples of the cars they have done, whether they are
currently available, or sold out. I saw no B&O cars listed).

So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
Kadee car side but I know many did.

What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
twins.

While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
possibilities.

Bill Welch
boyds1949 <E27ca@...>
 

in addition to the Duryea underframe, the B&O cars in classes N-35A, N-41 and (I think) N-44 had Z shaped end braces which were placed closer together on the end than the end braces on the Kadee car. That is a fairly visable spotting feature which makes them stand out for me. The earlier N-35 cars built in 1940 and 41 are more closely represented by the Atlas car.

John King

--- In STMFC@..., Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:

I was struck by how frustrated I was in my comments about the Kadee
offset twin and I hope I did not offend anyone by my initial email on
this subject. I went back to some notes I had made to myself about
it's potential for me in what I want to model. This helped me
remember the various details of the major groups of car "looks" which
in turn reminded me of why this offering is so frustrating to me. I
also looked back at all of Ed Hawkins' very authoritative series of
articles in the RP CYC to remind me of the various differences and
major owner railroads. In Part I he notes that there were "more than
127,000 33-foot interior length 2-bay offset twins were built." This
number includes the AAR Standard, the AAR Alternate Standard, and the
nonstandard cars.

So far, Kadee has done cars for 13 railroads, representing 16,926
cars or 13.32% of the cars built from 1934 through 1960. The B&O
owned 21,300 cars that pretty well match, if not exactly match the
Kadee model. One issue is that 14,000 of the B&O cars had the Duryea
underframe. While I can understand Kadee not creating the tooling for
a system used by only one railroad, I find it quite strange that they
have not done a model representing one of the 7,300 B&O cars without
the Duryea! While it is nice to have a model of a NYC car, their
1,000 cars seem like a small number of cars when compared to the
numbers owned by the B&O. (My authority for this is Kadee's website
that shows examples of the cars they have done, whether they are
currently available, or sold out. I saw no B&O cars listed).

So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
Kadee car side but I know many did.

What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
twins.

While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
possibilities.

Bill Welch
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Bill;

Many of us share your frustration, and some of you have also had these same
conversations with manufacturers over the possibilities of offering modular
parts on more than box cars. Hoppers and gons are a good example of what can
be done, and was nicely executed on the Accurail 41' IL gon, albeit without
additional options (different ends, for example). This is an especially good
option on gondolas, which standardized on certain lengths, and then had sides
of different construction, as well as floors of steel, wood, or nailable
steel, and a variety of drop and fixed enmds, all of which can be swapped
around.

It has been patiently explained to me that the realities of assembly costs
and engineering sometimes force manufactureres to go to more fool-proof
one-piece bodies with simple add-ons, rather than more complex multi-piece
bodies.

A study of the variations on the standard and alternate standard offset leads
one to the conclusion that some compromises will have to be made to do either
car in a majority of those roads rostering them, unless a highly modular and
innovative alternative is developed. The variations in IL, interior shape,
rivet patterns, side sills, and especially height, are many, and probably the
reason one has not seen more variations in model form. Snapping all those
pieces together on a modular hopper slope sheet/hopper bottom assembly gives
one pause to see what could go wrong given a few dimensional errors or fumble
fingers!

Here's hoping someone will take up that challenge...

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bill
Welch
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 9:01 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers



I was struck by how frustrated I was in my comments about the Kadee offset
twin and I hope I did not offend anyone by my initial email on this subject.
I went back to some notes I had made to myself about it's potential for me in
what I want to model. This helped me remember the various details of the
major groups of car "looks" which in turn reminded me of why this offering is
so frustrating to me. I also looked back at all of Ed Hawkins' very
authoritative series of articles in the RP CYC to remind me of the various
differences and major owner railroads. In Part I he notes that there were
"more than 127,000 33-foot interior length 2-bay offset twins were built."
This number includes the AAR Standard, the AAR Alternate Standard, and the
nonstandard cars.

So far, Kadee has done cars for 13 railroads, representing 16,926 cars or
13.32% of the cars built from 1934 through 1960. The B&O owned 21,300 cars
that pretty well match, if not exactly match the Kadee model. One issue is
that 14,000 of the B&O cars had the Duryea underframe. While I can understand
Kadee not creating the tooling for a system used by only one railroad, I find
it quite strange that they have not done a model representing one of the
7,300 B&O cars without the Duryea! While it is nice to have a model of a NYC
car, their 1,000 cars seem like a small number of cars when compared to the
numbers owned by the B&O. (My authority for this is Kadee's website that
shows examples of the cars they have done, whether they are currently
available, or sold out. I saw no B&O cars listed).

So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related to the
bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the cars with the
heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this configuration in small and
large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars with angled heap shields and only
8,800 cars with the notched angular heap shields. I have not calculated how
many L&N cars matched the Kadee car side but I know many did.

What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the possibilities if
they would adopt a modular approach to what they are doing. By doing 3 sides
and ends w/both straight tops and the various heap shield designs, most of
those 127,000 cars could be modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2
and 3/4 page table covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not
include the IC's cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3
offset twins.

While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology and
engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their subjects, I
would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves with their approach to
this particular car type and I think the shear number of cars their model
does not represent backs me up.

I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the possibilities.

Bill Welch

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Ed Hawkins
 

On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Bill Welch wrote:

<SNIP>
So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
Kadee car side but I know many did.

What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
twins.

While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
possibilities.
Bill,
The L&N had 3 series representing 5,000 prototype cars having side
arrangements essentially matching the Kadee model (not considering any
variations in the orientation of the side-stake angles). These were
series 32000-33999 (P-S 3-49), 76150-77649 (BSC 12-47), and 77750-79149
(P-S 3-48). As you pointed out, the difference is the end arrangement
having angular notched heap shields. If Kadee tooled a new pair of ends
having these heap shields, then additional models would include A&WP,
GA, Montour, SL-SF, TC, and WofA representing an additional 925
prototype cars.

If Kadee would tool the flat end arrangement used by B&O on their N-41
and N-44 cars (having regular AAR underframes) with Z-section vertical
supports, 8,000 prototype cars for B&O, LNE, and P&S would be
accurately represented (and possibly 500 more cars for CRP/CNJ).

Kadee has not yet produced models for two roads (ATSF and SL-SF) that
otherwise would match their model because the prototype cars had
Enterprise Type D door locks. Kadee offers models having Enterprise
latch and Wine door locks, which were the two most common types. The
NYC cars have been announced, and perhaps soon the C&EI cars will be
produced.

Regarding your comments about adopting a modular approach, Kadee's
model was designed essentially as a module in which each side and each
end are separate inserts. The core compromises the slope sheets and
hopper bottoms. Everything else is a detail part. Theoretically a new
pair of end inserts having the notched angular heap shields could be
tooled. The ends would be identical to the flat-top ends currently
available except they would have the correct heap shields for your L&N
cars and other roads identified above.

In my conversations with Kadee, it's my understanding that the company
has considered tooling ends having the heap shields as well as the ends
correct for the B&O N-41 and N-44 cars. Why hasn't Kadee produced these
variations? It comes down to the tooling cost versus the profit
potential. It's apparent to me that Kadee hasn't been able to justify
the cost versus the projected profit to be made for either of these
variations. If an entrepreneur or the L&N/B&O Historical Society could
guarantee sufficient sales to Kadee (i.e., a proprietary project), then
I believe Kadee would be open to tool the new ends.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins
boyds1949 <E27ca@...>
 

Has Kadee done the cars in the pre speed lettering Reading lettering yet? They did the speed lettering scheme but I have not seen the earlier version. The earlier lettering was shown in the RPC article.

John King

--- In STMFC@..., Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Bill Welch wrote:

<SNIP>
So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
Kadee car side but I know many did.

What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
twins.

While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
possibilities.
Bill,
The L&N had 3 series representing 5,000 prototype cars having side
arrangements essentially matching the Kadee model (not considering any
variations in the orientation of the side-stake angles). These were
series 32000-33999 (P-S 3-49), 76150-77649 (BSC 12-47), and 77750-79149
(P-S 3-48). As you pointed out, the difference is the end arrangement
having angular notched heap shields. If Kadee tooled a new pair of ends
having these heap shields, then additional models would include A&WP,
GA, Montour, SL-SF, TC, and WofA representing an additional 925
prototype cars.

If Kadee would tool the flat end arrangement used by B&O on their N-41
and N-44 cars (having regular AAR underframes) with Z-section vertical
supports, 8,000 prototype cars for B&O, LNE, and P&S would be
accurately represented (and possibly 500 more cars for CRP/CNJ).

Kadee has not yet produced models for two roads (ATSF and SL-SF) that
otherwise would match their model because the prototype cars had
Enterprise Type D door locks. Kadee offers models having Enterprise
latch and Wine door locks, which were the two most common types. The
NYC cars have been announced, and perhaps soon the C&EI cars will be
produced.

Regarding your comments about adopting a modular approach, Kadee's
model was designed essentially as a module in which each side and each
end are separate inserts. The core compromises the slope sheets and
hopper bottoms. Everything else is a detail part. Theoretically a new
pair of end inserts having the notched angular heap shields could be
tooled. The ends would be identical to the flat-top ends currently
available except they would have the correct heap shields for your L&N
cars and other roads identified above.

In my conversations with Kadee, it's my understanding that the company
has considered tooling ends having the heap shields as well as the ends
correct for the B&O N-41 and N-44 cars. Why hasn't Kadee produced these
variations? It comes down to the tooling cost versus the profit
potential. It's apparent to me that Kadee hasn't been able to justify
the cost versus the projected profit to be made for either of these
variations. If an entrepreneur or the L&N/B&O Historical Society could
guarantee sufficient sales to Kadee (i.e., a proprietary project), then
I believe Kadee would be open to tool the new ends.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
water.kresse@...
 

Ed,



Are talking about extended-ends and end-extensions when we mention "heap-shields"?



Don't what is slang and what is "correct" terminology for these.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Hawkins" <hawk0621@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 10:15:54 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers


On Oct 12, 2009, at 8:00 PM, Bill Welch wrote:

<SNIP>
 So okay they are only doing one basic car body, especially as related
 to the bottom of the side of the car. But they have failed to do the
 cars with the heap shields. Several railroads had cars with this
 configuration in small and large numbers. The L&N had only 7,200 cars
 with angled heap shields and only 8,800 cars with the notched angular
 heap shields. I have not calculated how many L&N cars matched the
 Kadee car side but I know many did.

 What really bugs me is that model companies do not see the
 possibilities if they would adopt a modular approach to what they are
 doing. By doing 3 sides and ends w/both straight tops and the
 various heap shield designs, most of those 127,000 cars could be
 modeled and almost all of the railroads in Ed's 2 and 3/4 page table
 covering over 55 railroads could be done. I did not include the IC's
 cars and their cousins. And many people do not want just 1-3 offset
 twins.

 While Kadee does beautiful models, and have added to the technology
 and engineering of modeling in the way they have approached their
 subjects, I would also argue that they have outsmarted themselves
 with their approach to this particular car type and I think the shear
 number of cars their model does not represent backs me up.

 I hope that one of the manufacturers will wake up and see the
 possibilities.
Bill,
The L&N had 3 series representing 5,000 prototype cars having side
arrangements essentially matching the Kadee model (not considering any
variations in the orientation of the side-stake angles). These were
series 32000-33999 (P-S 3-49), 76150-77649 (BSC 12-47), and 77750-79149
(P-S 3-48). As you pointed out, the difference is the end arrangement
having angular notched heap shields. If Kadee tooled a new pair of ends
having these heap shields, then additional models would include A&WP,
GA, Montour, SL-SF, TC, and WofA representing an additional 925
prototype cars.

If Kadee would tool the flat end arrangement used by B&O on their N-41
and N-44 cars (having regular AAR underframes) with Z-section vertical
supports, 8,000 prototype cars for B&O, LNE, and P&S would be
accurately represented (and possibly 500 more cars for CRP/CNJ).

Kadee has not yet produced models for two roads (ATSF and SL-SF) that
otherwise would match their model because the prototype cars had
Enterprise Type D door locks. Kadee offers models having Enterprise
latch and Wine door locks, which were the two most common types. The
NYC cars have been announced, and perhaps soon the C&EI cars will be
produced.

Regarding your comments about adopting a modular approach, Kadee's
model was designed essentially as a module in which each side and each
end are separate inserts. The core compromises the slope sheets and
hopper bottoms. Everything else is a detail part. Theoretically a new
pair of end inserts having the notched angular heap shields could be
tooled. The ends would be identical to the flat-top ends currently
available except they would have the correct heap shields for your L&N
cars and other roads identified above.

In my conversations with Kadee, it's my understanding that the company
has considered tooling ends having the heap shields as well as the ends
correct for the B&O N-41 and N-44 cars. Why hasn't Kadee produced these
variations? It comes down to the tooling cost versus the profit
potential. It's apparent to me that Kadee hasn't been able to justify
the cost versus the projected profit to be made for either of these
variations. If an entrepreneur or the L&N/B&O Historical Society could
guarantee sufficient sales to Kadee (i.e., a proprietary project), then
I believe Kadee would be open to tool the new ends.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cornbeltroute <cornbeltroute@...>
 

Ed, Bill,

Might you have a couple of references to the offset twin hoppers talked about in this thread?

I'm going to look in my hoppers file right now, maybe I've got something in there. I'll check my RP CYCs, too (I've got most of 'em but not all of them) and peruse the older CBCs I have at hand.

Thanks much,

Brian

Brian Chapman
Evansdale, Iowa
Ed Hawkins
 

On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:35 PM, cornbeltroute wrote:

Might you have a couple of references to the offset twin hoppers
talked about in this thread?

I'm going to look in my hoppers file right now, maybe I've got
something in there. I'll check my RP CYCs, too (I've got most of 'em
but not all of them) and peruse the older CBCs I have at hand.
Brian,
I discussed these types of cars in RP CYC Volumes 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and
13. Another two-part article was published in Railmodel Journal about
the time when the Kadee model was being released (June and Aug. 2006).
Regards,
Ed Hawkins
Ed Hawkins
 

On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:31 PM, water.kresse@... wrote:

Are talking about extended-ends and end-extensions when we mention
"heap-shields"?

Don't what is slang and what is "correct" terminology for these.
Al,
That's what I'm referring to. For lack of an official term that I don't
recall ever seeing in a CBC or other dictionary of terms, I have
referred to them as heap shields. If anyone knows the proper
terminology or can point to a reference, please advise.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cornbeltroute <cornbeltroute@...>
 

Brian, I discussed these types of cars in RP CYC Volumes 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, and 13. Another two-part article was published in Railmodel Journal about the time when the Kadee model was being released (June and Aug. 2006). <
Ed, thank you. I've got the first four RP Cycs.

Cross-checking with your roster in Vol. 1, I see that the 1943 CBC has nine photos of these cars plus four drawings, three of which might or might not be relevant. I'll study your articles to find out.

It's a great way to learn, checking references while an interesting thread is underway.

-Brian

Brian Chapman
Evansdale, Iowa
Tim O'Connor
 

Ed

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't
find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name --
several drawings showed different types of raised ends but
none identified the raised part.

Tim O'Connor
Rich Yoder
 

Heap shields were referenced in the book "Freight car Equipment of the
Chesapeake and Ohio railway August 1, 1937" by Carl Shaver. Originally
published by the C&O in 1937 by General Superintendant of Transportation
J.W. King. I never saw reference to heap shields "Styles" other than in this
publication. Radial Arch, Oval notch, Angular peak, were all terms used by
the C&O. Dreadnaught reinforced or Corrugation reinforcement and a
reference of "bib" extensions are mentioned.

Rich Yoder

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:58 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Ed

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't
find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name --
several drawings showed different types of raised ends but
none identified the raised part.

Tim O'Connor



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links
rwitt_2000
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Ed

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't
find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name --
several drawings showed different types of raised ends but
none identified the raised part.

Tim O'Connor
Tim, Ed and others,

The term maybe railroad specific as I have seen it used on equipment
diagrams for hopper cars. Some use the term "heap capacity" to describe
the additional capacity over a level load. The B&O used the term
"piling".

Bob Witt

Bob Witt
cornbeltroute <cornbeltroute@...>
 

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name <
The term maybe railroad specific as I have seen it used on equipment
diagrams for hopper cars. Some use the term "heap capacity" to describe
the additional capacity over a level load. The B&O used the term
"piling". <<
FWIW, earlier today while perusing a 1943 CBC, a drawing of an AAR Class HM 55-Ton all-steel twin hopper car presented by Enterprise Railway Equipment Co. carried, in part, this description:

"Cubic capacity, 2,139 cu. ft. level or 2,455 cu. ft. with 12 in. average heap."

(So, is this an Enterprise car design, I wonder, or an AAR car design with Enterprise's tag, since Enterprise hoppers and bolsters were used in the drawing? Or something else? . . .)

-Brian

Brian Chapman
Evansdale, Iowa
water.kresse@...
 

Rich,



Carl Shaver is the one who had me use extended-ends and end-extensions in my follow-up C&O Hops and Gons 1937-1965  book.



Al

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Yoder" <oscale48@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:25:34 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Heap shields were referenced in the book "Freight car Equipment of the
Chesapeake and Ohio railway August 1, 1937" by Carl Shaver. Originally
published by the C&O in 1937 by General Superintendant of Transportation
J.W. King. I never saw reference to heap shields "Styles" other than in this
publication. Radial Arch, Oval notch, Angular peak, were all terms used by
the C&O. Dreadnaught reinforced or Corrugation  reinforcement and a
reference of "bib" extensions are mentioned.

Rich Yoder

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:58 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Ed

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't
find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name --
several drawings showed different types of raised ends but
none identified the raised part.

Tim O'Connor



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links
water.kresse@...
 

Tim,



The C&O listed 10" heap and the N&W/Virginian 30 degree heap and then a cubic capacity different than level.



Apparently flood loading put an end to these raised end-styles.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "rwitt_2000" <rwitt_2000@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, October 14, 2009 8:22:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Those Pesky Offset Twin hoppers

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Ed

I looked all through my 1953 Car Builder's Cyc and I couldn't
find anything that identified the "heap shields" by name --
several drawings showed different types of raised ends but
none identified the raised part.

Tim O'Connor
Tim, Ed and others,

The term maybe railroad specific as I have seen it used on equipment
diagrams for hopper cars. Some use the term "heap capacity" to describe
the additional capacity over a level load.  The B&O used the term
"piling".

Bob Witt

Bob Witt
1 - 16 of 16