From a slide on eBay, this appears to be a Tide Water tank car, TWOX
3050, that has been converted from a three compartment into a single
compartment based upon the flanges on the top of the tank. There is no
date when the slide was taken.

Bob Witt

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380166651780&ssPageNa\;
me=STRK:MEWAX:IT

On Oct 14, 2009, at 1:15 PM, rwitt_2000 wrote:

From a slide on eBay, this appears to be a Tide Water tank car, TWOX
3050, that has been converted from a three compartment into a single
compartment based upon the flanges on the top of the tank. There is no
date when the slide was taken.

This car was originally built as an 8,000 gal. single compartment
GATC Type 30. Apparently Tidewater converted it to a three
compartment car by adding internal bulkheads (note the rivet courses
for these) and additional domes, then converted it back to a single
compartment car by plating over the openings for the additional domes
(the center dome appears to be original). Conversions from single to
three compartment cars were more common than is generally recognized,
but conversions back to single compartment cars weren't common.

Richard Hendrickson

but conversions back to single compartment cars weren't common.<

Just curious. Did they take out the bulkheads and fill the rivet holes? Wonder why they would spend that much labor?

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Jon,

As this was first a conversion from single compartment to three
compartment configuration that means that the new interior bulkheads
were most likely installed in sections. These had to go into the
original tank through the openings cut for the new domes. These new
finished bulkheads may have been fabricated in a minimum of two half
round plates with flanges for riveting or maybe three plates to ease
internal construction effort. Converting these cars back to a single
compartment configuration may have simply required removal of part of
the interior bulkhead. The exterior bulkhead rivets would have
remained in place.

Just a thought on my part. I am very much open to learning more on the
construction methods of such conversions.

Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

Converting these cars back to a single

compartment configuration may have simply required removal of part of
the interior bulkhead.<

Make sense. Early anti-splash cars<G>! All three outlet would have to remain to be used.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

--- In STMFC@..., "Jon Miller" <atsf@...> wrote:

Converting these cars back to a single

compartment configuration may have simply required removal of part of
the interior bulkhead.<

Make sense. Early anti-splash cars<G>! All three outlet would have to
remain to be used.

Not necessarily if the part of the partion removed was at the bottom of the interior bulkheads. Of course leaving the bottom outlets might have cost less in the conversion.

George Simmons
Dry Prong, LA

Jon, George & Group,

My thought was that a large portion of the interior bulkhead would be
removed and that this removed portion would would create an opening
extending from the lower bulkhead flange to the upper bulkhead flange.
Thus the car would almost completely drain except for a puddle the
thickness of the bulkhead flange section. Then again, with a grinder
or cutting tool a portion of this flange at the bottom of the tank
could have been removed also and we are back to the original tank
bottom as the flow line. Overall, not a great deal of work. And
remember, in our period, the cost of labor was far less than it is
today.

Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

Not necessarily if the part of the partion removed was at the bottom of the interior bulkheads.<

I just assumed this would require exterior rivet removal.

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

Jon,

With the rivets holding the interior bulkheads in place spaced at
every four to six inches on-centers through the bulkhead flange and
tank coursing it would be possible to remove a portion of the flange
at the bottom of the bulkhead between the rivets (a length of
approximately 4-inches if 6-inch rivet spacing) to regain the original
flow of the bottom of the original tank. Remember, a properly
installed rivet connecting two steel plates upon cooling cinches the
plates up very tight to make a watertight seal. A good example of this
being the QUEEN MARY just up the freeway from here with over
10,000,000 rivets and the last time I was aboard (less than two weeks
ago) the old gal was still afloat. This some 75 years and 22 days
(from today) since being launched.

Cheers,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

Actually, it doesn't. Fluid-tight joints must be "caulked" or "fullered" by hitting the exposed edge with a chisel to force a lip of metal into the underlying plate. The compressive load over a rivetted joint is not uniform. It is high directly under the rivet heads and can be quite low in between - it's just the nature of elastic materials (like steel).

KL

I'd bet that the insertion of new bulkheads was done by removing the rivets on one end head and then re-riveting it after bulkheads were installed. One reason railroads liked riveted construction so well was because of just this capability, that rivets could be cold-chiseled or air hammered to remove them, and later new parts re-riveted.

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

On Oct 17, 2009, at 9:53 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

I'd bet that the insertion of new bulkheads was done by
removing the rivets on one end head and then re-riveting it after
bulkheads were installed. One reason railroads liked riveted
construction so well was because of just this capability, that rivets
could be cold-chiseled or air hammered to remove them, and later new
parts re-riveted.

Tony is correct about this. In fact, the internal diaphragms were
shaped exactly like tank ends - because, in fact, that's what they
were. IIRC, someone a couple of days ago assumed that the tank
diaphragms were somehow inserted through the dome, but that would
have been physically impossible. Dome manways were much too small,
and even with the entire top of the dome removed, the dome size was
such that an internal diaphragm would have to have been made like a
multi-piece jigsaw puzzle to fit through it.

Richard Hendrickson

In fact, the internal diaphragms were

shaped exactly like tank ends - because, in fact, that's what they
were.<

Richard,
This makes sense and the conversion to a multiple tank makes sense. The question is how were they put back to a single tank. Were the internal diaphragms just removed and all the rivet holes plugged with new rivets? Or were the Diaphragms torched out and a new end applied. Seems like this would be a lot of work when it could be used as is for one liquid!

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS

I'd bet that the insertion of new bulkheads was done by
removing the rivets on one end head and then re-riveting it after
bulkheads were installed. One reason railroads liked riveted
construction so well was because of just this capability, that rivets
could be cold-chiseled or air hammered to remove them, and later new
parts re-riveted.

Tony Thompson

Is there a date on this photo?

I note that there are pairs of double rivet lines where the tank divisions were. Were there pairs
of ends there, vs a single internal bulkhead, with a void space between the small tank compartments?
If so, the longitudinal section of the car would have look like this"

(....)(....)(....)

Right?
And presuming so, when they were removed, would the entire interior bulkhead been removed, or would
they simply have torched out a substantial hole in the bottom of each of these bulkheads, so the
fluid contents could drain . . . or would they have used all three drains so as to get it all out?
What about the liquid in between the bulkheads? Perhaps a channel cut through the part of the
bulkhead that was parallel to the tank shell?

SGL





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (6.1.0.447)
Database version: 6.13500
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/

On Oct 18, 2009, at 10:16 AM, Jon Miller wrote:

In fact, the internal diaphragms were

shaped exactly like tank ends - because, in fact, that's what they
were.<

Richard,
This makes sense and the conversion to a multiple tank makes
sense. The
question is how were they put back to a single tank. Were the
internal
diaphragms just removed and all the rivet holes plugged with new
rivets? Or
were the Diaphragms torched out and a new end applied. Seems like
this
would be a lot of work when it could be used as is for one liquid!

This conversion back to a single compartment car was carried out so
seldom that I have no idea how it was done, and I am reluctant to
speculate.

Richard Hendrickson

On Oct 18, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

I note that there are pairs of double rivet lines where the tank
divisions were. Were there pairs
of ends there, vs a single internal bulkhead, with a void space
between the small tank compartments?
If so, the longitudinal section of the car would have look like this"

(....)(....)(....)

Right?

Yes.

And presuming so, when they were removed, would the entire interior
bulkhead been removed, or would
they simply have torched out a substantial hole in the bottom of
each of these bulkheads, so the
fluid contents could drain . . . or would they have used all three
drains so as to get it all out?
What about the liquid in between the bulkheads? Perhaps a channel
cut through the part of the
bulkhead that was parallel to the tank shell?

Well, in the total absence of any hard evidence, any or all of these
speculations are possible. Fortunately, as modelers, we don't need
to know, even in the unlikely event that we should want to model this
or a similar car. FWIW, this is only the second photo I've ever seen
of a multiple compartment car converted to a single compartment car,
so they were apparently very rare.

Richard Hendrickson

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

On Oct 18, 2009, at 12:54 PM, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

I note that there are pairs of double rivet lines where the tank
divisions were. Were there pairs
of ends there, vs a single internal bulkhead, with a void space
between the small tank compartments?
If so, the longitudinal section of the car would have look like this"

(....)(....)(....)

Right?

Yes.

And presuming so, when they were removed, would the entire interior
bulkhead been removed, or would
they simply have torched out a substantial hole in the bottom of
each of these bulkheads, so the
fluid contents could drain . . . or would they have used all three
drains so as to get it all out?
What about the liquid in between the bulkheads? Perhaps a channel
cut through the part of the
bulkhead that was parallel to the tank shell?

Well, in the total absence of any hard evidence, any or all of these
speculations are possible. Fortunately, as modelers, we don't need
to know, even in the unlikely event that we should want to model this
or a similar car. FWIW, this is only the second photo I've ever seen
of a multiple compartment car converted to a single compartment car,
so they were apparently very rare.

Richard Hendrickson

Just my .02...

I feel that the uncommon cars were what drew the steam-era photographers to lensing them. I'm of the impression that many fans of the time were of the Railroad Magazine Engine Picture Club "rods down, 3/4 view" school of photography that felt that freight cars were those dirty things that were pulled by the steam engines more worthy of exposing film on. But an unusual car, that was worth a frame of film on--maybe.

And so it was that I attended a train show today and visited a certain Canadian photo seller's booth. Boxes upon boxes of steam loco photos, but maybe one box of steam era freight car photos. I don't blame the guy for the lack of freight car photos--it's what he has to work with. Damn...if only we could reach back in time and give the photogs of the 1940's and '50s a few rolls of film each, and tell them to take some STMFC photos!!

Steve Lucas,
Ingersoll, Ontario.

To Group...
 
    I don't know when this slide was shot, but has anyone noticed the PRR passenger car in the background in the right? I'm guessing mid to late 50's.
 
  Steve Vallee