Date
1 - 11 of 11
IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads
|
Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
B&LE 50001-50750, 10 panel, blt 1949 CofG 21500-21699, 10 panel, blt 1949 C&IM 6000-6349, 8 panel, blt 1949 CCC&StL 74065-75478, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 CCC&StL 88000-88999, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 DL&W 83300-83799, 8 panel, blt 1934 DL&W 85000-85499, 8 panel, blt 1940 D&M 5000-5024, 8 panel, blt 1948 EJ&E 40000-41699, 12 panel, blt 1940 GN 73200-73699, 8 panel, blt 1931 KGBW 401-420, 8 panel, blt 1948 HCTX 9901-9960, 8 panel, blt 1937 L&M 1000-1299, 10 panel, blt 1949 MC 11700-11755, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450000-450994, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451000-454097, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450010-450988, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451084-454296, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 P&LE 3350-3399, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 There are too many more classes of NYC & P&LE cars to list here P&E 2801-2950, 8 panel, blt 1949 SOO ? I had mentioned last year that there is a need for a model of this style. Rich
--- On Wed, 1/26/11, Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
From: Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...> Subject: [STMFC] IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins To: STMFC@... Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 3:16 PM Ben-- I cannot back up my assertion with info that I have in front of me. But perhaps those on this list modelling other roads can? If the IC only moved coal to CN/GTW for loco use, there'd be no justification for the sizeable fleet of hoppers that the IC had. And no justification for an accurate model of them. With this premise, you'd be correct as to an accurate HO model having zero possbility of production with this alone in mind. Other roads would have seen these cars as well--which is why I ask modellers of those roads to chime in. Seems to me that more roads than CN/GTW got loco coal from mines served by the IC. As for Alburg, VT, this location would have been a little far afield for IC hoppers to travel when loco coal was available from mines in the Appalachians. And these IC's two- and three-bay hoppers were far more numerous than the GN's Canton-built hoppers. Steve Lucas. --- In STMFC@..., "Benjamin Hom" <b.hom@...> wrote: other roads than CN can chime in with their road's use of these cars. I seem to recall that the NYC used loco coal shipped in IC hoppers?"
|
|
|
|
MDelvec952
Rich, many thanks for that list. There were more than I thought. ....Mike
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich C <rhcdmc@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 5:57 pm Subject: Re: [STMFC] IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets B&LE 50001-50750, 10 panel, blt 1949 CofG 21500-21699, 10 panel, blt 1949 C&IM 6000-6349, 8 panel, blt 1949 CCC&StL 74065-75478, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 CCC&StL 88000-88999, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 DL&W 83300-83799, 8 panel, blt 1934 DL&W 85000-85499, 8 panel, blt 1940 D&M 5000-5024, 8 panel, blt 1948 EJ&E 40000-41699, 12 panel, blt 1940 GN 73200-73699, 8 panel, blt 1931 KGBW 401-420, 8 panel, blt 1948 HCTX 9901-9960, 8 panel, blt 1937 L&M 1000-1299, 10 panel, blt 1949 MC 11700-11755, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450000-450994, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451000-454097, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450010-450988, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451084-454296, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 P&LE 3350-3399, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 There are too many more classes of NYC & P&LE cars to list here P&E 2801-2950, 8 panel, blt 1949 SOO ? I had mentioned last year that there is a need for a model of this style. Rich --- On Wed, 1/26/11, Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...> wrote: From: Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...> Subject: [STMFC] IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins To: STMFC@... Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 3:16 PM Ben-- I cannot back up my assertion with info that I have in front of me. But perhaps those on this list modelling other roads can? If the IC only moved coal to CN/GTW for loco use, there'd be no justification for the sizeable fleet of hoppers that the IC had. And no justification for an accurate model of them. With this premise, you'd be correct as to an accurate HO model having zero possbility of production with this alone in mind. Other roads would have seen these cars as well--which is why I ask modellers of those roads to chime in. Seems to me that more roads than CN/GTW got loco coal from mines served by the IC. As for Alburg, VT, this location would have been a little far afield for IC hoppers to travel when loco coal was available from mines in the Appalachians. And these IC's two- and three-bay hoppers were far more numerous than the GN's Canton-built hoppers. Steve Lucas. --- In STMFC@..., "Benjamin Hom" <b.hom@...> wrote: other roads than CN can chime in with their road's use of these cars. I seem to recall that the NYC used loco coal shipped in IC hoppers?"
|
|
|
|
Benjamin Hom
Rich C wrote:
"Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets B&LE 50001-50750, 10 panel, blt 1949 CofG 21500-21699, 10 panel, blt 1949 C&IM 6000-6349, 8 panel, blt 1949 CCC&StL 74065-75478, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 CCC&StL 88000-88999, 8 panel, blt 1926-27 DL&W 83300-83799, 8 panel, blt 1934 DL&W 85000-85499, 8 panel, blt 1940 D&M 5000-5024, 8 panel, blt 1948 EJ&E 40000-41699, 12 panel, blt 1940 GN 73200-73699, 8 panel, blt 1931 KGBW 401-420, 8 panel, blt 1948 HCTX 9901-9960, 8 panel, blt 1937 L&M 1000-1299, 10 panel, blt 1949 MC 11700-11755, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450000-450994, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451000-454097, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 450010-450988, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 NYC 451084-454296, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 P&LE 3350-3399, 8 panel, blt 1924-27 There are too many more classes of NYC & P&LE cars to list here P&E 2801-2950, 8 panel, blt 1949 SOO ?" Not so fast, my friend. When discussing hoppers, do not go by appearance alone. You have to take dimensions into account, notably IL and height of top chord above rail as they contribute to the overall appearance of a cut of hoppers. For example, as David Thompson pointed out, the NYC System cars are dimensionally similar to the USRA twin, with IL of 30 ft 6 in/height of top chord above rail 10 ft 11 in (actually taller than the USRA twin), while the IC cars had an IL of 33 ft/height of top chord above rail 10 ft 8 in. To put the difference in length into context, put a Tichy or Accurail USRA twin hopper next to an Athearn twin hopper. http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/lot-479.jpg If you drill down into the other cars, you'd find more differences; for example, the DL&W cars had an IL of 34 ft, and you mixed in 40 ft cars, which further muddies your analysis. Ben Hom
|
|
|
|
I have to agree with Ben... this subject is really complex. Just look
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
at the span of 25 years in your list -- I'm sure that besides length & capacity there must have been other differences. I'm starting to understand what vendors are up against -- there must be 100 different design permutations for 2 bay offset hoppers! Tim O'Connor
"Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets
|
|
|
|
This was more or less just a general list. It would have taken awhile to breakdown the builders, dimensions and other quirks.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Rich Christie
--- On Wed, 1/26/11, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> Subject: [STMFC] RE: IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads To: STMFC@... Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:53 PM I have to agree with Ben... this subject is really complex. Just look at the span of 25 years in your list -- I'm sure that besides length & capacity there must have been other differences. I'm starting to understand what vendors are up against -- there must be 100 different design permutations for 2 bay offset hoppers! Tim O'Connor "Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
Richard Townsend
FWIW, IIRC Staffan Ehnbom did an article on kitbashing a GN version. Checking the model RR mag index indicates it might have been in the 6/87 Mainline Modeler.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Richard Townsend Lincoln City, Oregon
-----Original Message-----
From: Rich C <rhcdmc@...> To: STMFC@... Sent: Wed, Jan 26, 2011 5:08 pm Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads This was more or less just a general list. It would have taken awhile to breakdown the builders, dimensions and other quirks. Rich Christie --- On Wed, 1/26/11, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote: From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> Subject: [STMFC] RE: IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads To: STMFC@... Date: Wednesday, January 26, 2011, 5:53 PM I have to agree with Ben... this subject is really complex. Just look at the span of 25 years in your list -- I'm sure that besides length & capacity there must have been other differences. I'm starting to understand what vendors are up against -- there must be 100 different design permutations for 2 bay offset hoppers! Tim O'Connor "Here is a list outside of Illinois Central that had the "short taper/chisel side" twin offsets[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
|
|
soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
Well, Thanks :-) My take on the list just posted is the same as Ben's... without doing a lot of research, most, if not all, the NYC and subsidiary road cars are the length of the USRA car, but taller. Where the GBW, E&LS, and IC cars seem to fit is with the cars people have been calling the AAR Alternate Standard cars, the cars that C&O and NKP had lots of. I believe they are the same size. Also, they have the same shape, that is, the top chords of the side are straight from end to end, rather than tapering in at the ends like the AAR Standard offset side car does. What this means is that if someone ever does tooling for the Alternate Standard car, just new sides gets the IC version, and those other two hot selling roadnames. The key is, whoever does it needs to plan ahead when they design the shut-offs under the slope sheets, because if they follow the straight angle of the Alternate Standard sides, the stepped end panels of the others won't work. OK, enough free design advice. Dennis
|
|
|
|
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
Seems to me that this car is towards the bottom of a list of many cars that have yet to be produced in Kadee, etc.-quality HO RTR. Resin is nice, and I have the GLa from Westerfield. Yet one can spend a lifetime just building or bashing cars, without ever erecting a layout to run them upon!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
UTLX X-3 PRR H21 PRR GLa just to mention three OTTOMH. Then there's the IC "alternate standard" hopper. One gentleman gave a list in this thread of "alternate standard" cars similar to the IC hoppers. Perhaps an IC hopper car model can be decorated for these other roads, or better yet, moulds made as Dennis Storzek mentions that allow the different permutations of "alternate standard" cars to be manufactured. Dennis' notes are very instructive here. Worldwide, there are a lot of manufacturers/importers that were not around even ten or twenty years ago producing some dead-accurate RTR stuff. Firms such as Canada's Rapido and True Line Trains. Australia's Aucision Models. US firms like Tangent Scale Models, ExactRail, etc. All work with smaller runs than Athearn and MDC did years ago, and dare I infer even Walthers runs today? These smaller firms concentrate on "niches" rather than cars of broad appeal to modellers. And these are the firms that may be convinced to bring out an IC hopper car, or an X-3. I'll buy many of both, as I've a layout to build, too. Steve Lucas.
--- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
David Sieber
Gentlem,
Agree completely that the UTLX X-3 (X-4,X-5), AAR Alternate Standard, and IC and similar nonstandard offset side twin hoppers would be welcome. I also hope that some manufacturer does them, despite the lack of colorful roadnames and the unfortunate likely inability of non-RPM buyers to perceive enough differences from what's already on the market to make them desirable, marketable, and profitable. Reading Dennis' comments carefully, he did not categorize the IC and similar hoppers as AAR Standard, but noted they were of similar size, with straight top chords and with what's been termed "chiseled" or "stepped" rather than smoothly tapered ends on the sides. To me, the most obvious visual differences that distinguish an AAR Standard vs. Alternate Standard vs. nonstandard all-steel offset twin hopper is the construction/configuration of the sides *between* the bolsters. The IC twin has sides between the bolsters comprised of 3 sheets mounted on only 7 evenly spaced hat-shaped side stakes, with double rivets, paired on heavy exterior rivet panels on the side at the 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 7th side stakes, and with zig-zagged double riveting at the 2nd, 4th, and 6th side stakes. See photo (ignoring the top extension) at http://gelwood.railfan.net/ic/ic80142alx.jpg Compare this to the AAR Alternate Standard twin offset hopper's sides between the bolsters that are 2 sheets mounted to 9 evenly spaced hat-shaped side stakes with double rivets, paired on exterior rivet panels at the 1st, 5th, and 9th side stakes, and zig-zagged at the intermediate side stakes. I don't have a good photo link or photos for which I have the rights, but here's a diagram: http://research.nprha.org/NP%20Hopper%20Cars/Hopper%20Cars%2070200.jpg On the other hand, the AAR Standard twin has offset sides between bolsters that are also 2 sheets, but mounted to 9 unevenly spaced L-shaped side stakes with single rivets, even on the overlapped center joint between the 2 side panels; this presents a smooth appearance in comparison to the protruding separate rivet panels on the sides of both the Alternate and IC-style twins. As others have noted, the ends of the sides are evenly tapered, with tapered top chords. Again, I found no good prototype photo link; just pick up any Kadee twin hopper, or Accurail 7700-series, or Athearn, or Train-Miniature, etc. Perhaps the best source of great photos and detailed information on classic 50-ton offset side twin hoppers is the extensive series of articles in RP Cycs; unfortunately, several issues are out of print. Regards, Dave Sieber, Reno NV
|
|
|
|
A. Premo <armprem2@...>
FWIW ..... IC hopper 68219 was on Train #9 in Alburgh,Vt on 11/16/1947 Conductor was Bockus
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: Steve Lucas To: STMFC@... Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2011 4:22 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: IC "Chiselled Side" Offset Twins - Other Roads Seems to me that this car is towards the bottom of a list of many cars that have yet to be produced in Kadee, etc.-quality HO RTR. Resin is nice, and I have the GLa from Westerfield. Yet one can spend a lifetime just building or bashing cars, without ever erecting a layout to run them upon! UTLX X-3 PRR H21 PRR GLa just to mention three OTTOMH. Then there's the IC "alternate standard" hopper. One gentleman gave a list in this thread of "alternate standard" cars similar to the IC hoppers. Perhaps an IC hopper car model can be decorated for these other roads, or better yet, moulds made as Dennis Storzek mentions that allow the different permutations of "alternate standard" cars to be manufactured. Dennis' notes are very instructive here. Worldwide, there are a lot of manufacturers/importers that were not around even ten or twenty years ago producing some dead-accurate RTR stuff. Firms such as Canada's Rapido and True Line Trains. Australia's Aucision Models. US firms like Tangent Scale Models, ExactRail, etc. All work with smaller runs than Athearn and MDC did years ago, and dare I infer even Walthers runs today? These smaller firms concentrate on "niches" rather than cars of broad appeal to modellers. And these are the firms that may be convinced to bring out an IC hopper car, or an X-3. I'll buy many of both, as I've a layout to build, too. Steve Lucas. --- In STMFC@..., "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...> wrote: > > > > --- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@> wrote: > > > > > > I have to agree with Ben... this subject is really complex. Just look > > at the span of 25 years in your list -- I'm sure that besides length & > > capacity there must have been other differences. > > > > I'm starting to understand what vendors are up against -- there must > > be 100 different design permutations for 2 bay offset hoppers! > > > > Tim O'Connor > > Well, Thanks :-) > > My take on the list just posted is the same as Ben's... without doing a lot of research, most, if not all, the NYC and subsidiary road cars are the length of the USRA car, but taller. > > Where the GBW, E&LS, and IC cars seem to fit is with the cars people have been calling the AAR Alternate Standard cars, the cars that C&O and NKP had lots of. I believe they are the same size. Also, they have the same shape, that is, the top chords of the side are straight from end to end, rather than tapering in at the ends like the AAR Standard offset side car does. What this means is that if someone ever does tooling for the Alternate Standard car, just new sides gets the IC version, and those other two hot selling roadnames. The key is, whoever does it needs to plan ahead when they design the shut-offs under the slope sheets, because if they follow the straight angle of the Alternate Standard sides, the stepped end panels of the others won't work. > > OK, enough free design advice. > > Dennis > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Internal Virus Database is out of date. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00 ____________________________________________________________ Obama Urges Homeowners to Refinance If you owe under $729k you probably qualify for Obama's Refi Program http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL3241/4d4317c6b5b43b46ast05duc
|
|
|
|
Mark Mathu
KGBW 401-420 were built 6/1949, according to the builders photo I have.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I can post a link to an image once it gets approved by the group moderators.
--- In STMFC@..., Rich C <rhcdmc@...> wrote:
|
|
|