Dominion Cars


Don <riverman_vt@...>
 

Mon Oct 7, 2013 1:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by: pierreoliver2003


AFAIK the car still survives in the museum in Delson Quebec.

And for what it's worth, most of the Canadian modelers I hang
with call them Fowlers.

Pierre Oliver


The Dominion box car at CRHA Delson was painted and lettered as
CGR #551672 in 2003 and was NOT constructed with the Fowler Patent,
nor was the CPR converted stock car that is also there.

Like those of us within the US, a number of Canadians also refer
to he cars by an improper name. Since I see Al Westerfield has responded perhaps I should ask if we should blame him for that? VBG

Should anyone need them I have a few 34 1/2 ft HO scale car body
shots her from the toolmaker's first attempt. Anyone modeling the
Newfoundland narrow gauge? (-:

Cordially, Don Valentine


midrly
 

Stafford Swain's Mainline Modeler multi-article write-up on these cars in the mid-1980's referred to them consistently as "Dominion" cars. "Fowler" is used by many Canadian modellers, but this is more a convenient reference than anything else.  


Steve Lucas.  



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Mon Oct 7, 2013 1:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by: pierreoliver2003


AFAIK the car still survives in the museum in Delson Quebec.

And for what it's worth, most of the Canadian modelers I hang
with call them Fowlers.

Pierre Oliver


The Dominion box car at CRHA Delson was painted and lettered as
CGR #551672 in 2003 and was NOT constructed with the Fowler Patent,
nor was the CPR converted stock car that is also there.

Like those of us within the US, a number of Canadians also refer
to he cars by an improper name. Since I see Al Westerfield has responded perhaps I should ask if we should blame him for that? VBG

Should anyone need them I have a few 34 1/2 ft HO scale car body
shots her from the toolmaker's first attempt. Anyone modeling the
Newfoundland narrow gauge? (-:

Cordially, Don Valentine


Eric Lombard
 

Hmmmm...  ;--)
The the CPR and CN Historical Society websites consistently use "Fowler". "Dominion" does not seem to be used, though I have not searched every page for it.

Just for fun,
Eric

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Stafford Swain's Mainline Modeler multi-article write-up on these cars in the mid-1980's referred to them consistently as "Dominion" cars. "Fowler" is used by many Canadian modellers, but this is more a convenient reference than anything else.  


Steve Lucas.  



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Mon Oct 7, 2013 1:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by: pierreoliver2003


AFAIK the car still survives in the museum in Delson Quebec.

And for what it's worth, most of the Canadian modelers I hang
with call them Fowlers.

Pierre Oliver


The Dominion box car at CRHA Delson was painted and lettered as
CGR #551672 in 2003 and was NOT constructed with the Fowler Patent,
nor was the CPR converted stock car that is also there.

Like those of us within the US, a number of Canadians also refer
to he cars by an improper name. Since I see Al Westerfield has responded perhaps I should ask if we should blame him for that? VBG

Should anyone need them I have a few 34 1/2 ft HO scale car body
shots her from the toolmaker's first attempt. Anyone modeling the
Newfoundland narrow gauge? (-:

Cordially, Don Valentine


Douglas Harding
 

And where does this leave those of us whose railroad had “Fowler clones”? Did the clones use the Fowler patent? Should they be called Fowler Clones?

 

Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 


pierre.oliver@...
 

Finally having had a few minutes to peruse some articles I have an idea why the term Dominion car is used.

It would appear that a significant number of the cars in question were built by Dominion Car and Foundry, which I believe became Canada Car and Foundry.

I further believe that the most correct  title for these cars is simply "36' single sheathed cars".

Pierre Oliver



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Stafford Swain's Mainline Modeler multi-article write-up on these cars in the mid-1980's referred to them consistently as "Dominion" cars. "Fowler" is used by many Canadian modellers, but this is more a convenient reference than anything else.  


Steve Lucas.  



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Mon Oct 7, 2013 1:40 pm (PDT) . Posted by: pierreoliver2003


AFAIK the car still survives in the museum in Delson Quebec.

And for what it's worth, most of the Canadian modelers I hang
with call them Fowlers.

Pierre Oliver


The Dominion box car at CRHA Delson was painted and lettered as
CGR #551672 in 2003 and was NOT constructed with the Fowler Patent,
nor was the CPR converted stock car that is also there.

Like those of us within the US, a number of Canadians also refer
to he cars by an improper name. Since I see Al Westerfield has responded perhaps I should ask if we should blame him for that? VBG

Should anyone need them I have a few 34 1/2 ft HO scale car body
shots her from the toolmaker's first attempt. Anyone modeling the
Newfoundland narrow gauge? (-:

Cordially, Don Valentine


Benjamin Hom
 

Pierre Oliver wrote:
"I further believe that the most correct title for these cars is simply '36' single sheathed cars'."
 
It's not like there are any other 36 ft SS boxcars out there.
 
Ben Hom


pierre.oliver@...
 

However Dominion Car and Foundry built more than one style of boxcar.
Pierre Oliver

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Pierre Oliver wrote:
"I further believe that the most correct title for these cars is simply '36' single sheathed cars'."
 
It's not like there are any other 36 ft SS boxcars out there.
 
Ben Hom


Richard Townsend
 

If the prototype literature does not have a specific name for them, but there is a need for a name to be used by modelers, there probably are a few possibilities.  Among others, how about "Fowler-type cars," or "so-called Fowler cars," or "'Fowler' cars [Fowler in quotes]?"  The point should be to communicate needed information in a clear way.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon


Ray Breyer
 

I generally refer to Canadian cars as "Dominion", and to American cars as "Fowlers". There are subtle but obvious design differences between the two nation's "Fowler-type" cars, even after the Canadians stopped following the original designs. Mostly, the roofs are different between the two car types, and the original Fowler/Dominion cars have a horizontal brace at each end panel. There's also more end variation in American cars.

I'm currently armpit deep in examining the NKP and NYC's wood boxcar fleets, but after I'm done with those I'll be taking a good, hard look at all of these cars to see just where everything falls. One thing I think I've noticed is that it may have been the IC (1914) that first stretched the 36' Fowlers into 40-foot cars, which were then copied by the CGR (1916).

 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:52 PM, "richtownsend@..." wrote:


If the prototype literature does not have a specific name for them, but there is a need for a name to be used by modelers, there probably are a few possibilities.  Among others, how about "Fowler-type cars," or "so-called Fowler cars," or "'Fowler' cars [Fowler in quotes]?"  The point should be to communicate needed information in a clear way.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon





Dennis Storzek
 

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

I generally refer to Canadian cars as "Dominion", and to American cars as "Fowlers". There are subtle but obvious design differences between the two nation's "Fowler-type" cars, even after the Canadians stopped following the original designs. Mostly, the roofs are different between the two car types, and the original Fowler/Dominion cars have a horizontal brace at each end panel. There's also more end variation in American cars.

I'm currently armpit deep in examining the NKP and NYC's wood boxcar fleets, but after I'm done with those I'll be taking a good, hard look at all of these cars to see just where everything falls. One thing I think I've noticed is that it may have been the IC (1914) that first stretched the 36' Fowlers into 40-foot cars, which were then copied by the CGR (1916).

The problem with this is that when the Soo Line had AC&F stretch the design to 40' in 1913, they also changed the underframe to a deep fishbelly centersill, and introduces the odd crossbearer / post / side sill connection that give the cars their distinctive "sawtooth" look, yet these are truly Fowler cars, as they have the slotted holes for the sheathing bolts in the framing, as described in the Fowler patent. I've never found any evidence that they had the more extensive tightening system described in Mr. Fowler's additional claims, but the slotted holes are claimed in the patent. It could well be that there are additional cars of other designs that also made use of the Fowler patent.

In the series of articles, Stafford freely admits he coined the term "Dominion car", to honor the development work DC&F did in conjunction with CPR. Al Westerfield admits he adopted the term after seeing the Fowler advertisment, without realizing that all the cars claimed were not of the same design. What's the matter with simply calling them what they are, 36' single sheathed cars?

Dennis Storzek


Robert kirkham
 

I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 


Armand Premo
 

BTW,Does anyone know if Sunshine's decals are still available,especially the "chalk marks"  ? Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Breyer
Sent: Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:02 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: RE: Re:Dominion Cars

 

I generally refer to Canadian cars as "Dominion", and to American cars as "Fowlers". There are subtle but obvious design differences between the two nation's "Fowler-type" cars, even after the Canadians stopped following the original designs. Mostly, the roofs are different between the two car types, and the original Fowler/Dominion cars have a horizontal brace at each end panel. There's also more end variation in American cars.

I'm currently armpit deep in examining the NKP and NYC's wood boxcar fleets, but after I'm done with those I'll be taking a good, hard look at all of these cars to see just where everything falls. One thing I think I've noticed is that it may have been the IC (1914) that first stretched the 36' Fowlers into 40-foot cars, which were then copied by the CGR (1916).

 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


On Wednesday, October 9, 2013 6:52 PM, "richtownsend@..." wrote:


If the prototype literature does not have a specific name for them, but there is a need for a name to be used by modelers, there probably are a few possibilities.  Among others, how about "Fowler-type cars," or "so-called Fowler cars," or "'Fowler' cars [Fowler in quotes]?"  The point should be to communicate needed information in a clear way.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon





Daniel McConnachie
 

Rob,

Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet, Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers, Daniel

PS your 7/8 ends in S worked out wonderfully. Have you moved forward with any other Shapeways items that we discussed last year?

Daniel.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Robert Kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:
 

I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 




--
Daniel McConnachie


Clark Propst
 

Being a relative lightweight in this conversation I think some are missing the forest and just looking at trees. To me, the purpose of these modeler coined names is so a person can get a vision in their mines eye. If I say AAR 1937 design a picture appears in our heads. If I then say AAR 1937 Modified, the picture gets taller. If I say ARA 1932 the picture gets shorter. I don’t envision the door, roof, end types. That comes only when I want to know about a specific car series. Again, to me, when someone is talking about a Fowler patent car I create an image in my head. If someone says Dominion car I put a CN or CP on that image.
 
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Dennis Storzek
 

Yeah, Clark, but the problem here is the nomenclature has never been defined. If one says a 1937 AAR boxcar, or a USRA double sheathed boxcar, the mind's eye goes directly back to the drawing published in the CBC (among other places) of the real deal, and we all get the same mental picture.  On the other hand, when someone mentions a "Fowler car", we all get a different mental picture. In discussions here over the past several years it has become obvious that many of the participants have never even read the Clegg Swain articles from the eighties, and are simply using the term to man a small single sheathed boxcar, which is confusing those of use who see a much more specific image. If one only means a generic small single sheathed boxcar, why not just say it?


I suspect that this goes back to the very human trait of trying to fit things in neat pigeon holes... and when the pigeon holes don't exist, we tend to make them up. This has led to some ridiculous fabrications; PS-0 boxcars and Chicago Great Western X-29's, to name a couple. The people using these terms see some logic in them, but the rest of us don't, because we read more into them than was intended. It seems to me that this is counter productive; it makes our lexicon less precise rather than more so.


Dennis Storzek



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:

Being a relative lightweight in this conversation I think some are missing the forest and just looking at trees. To me, the purpose of these modeler coined names is so a person can get a vision in their mines eye. If I say AAR 1937 design a picture appears in our heads. If I then say AAR 1937 Modified, the picture gets taller. If I say ARA 1932 the picture gets shorter. I don’t envision the door, roof, end types. That comes only when I want to know about a specific car series. Again, to me, when someone is talking about a Fowler patent car I create an image in my head. If someone says Dominion car I put a CN or CP on that image.
 
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Ray Breyer
 

Hi guys,
 
As a frame of reference as to what constitutes an "actual" Fowler boxcar, I just pulled the patents. Can't really have an intelligent discussion about the topic without 'em!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
As a random factoid: William Fowler calls his cars "cars of the Fowler type" in at least one of these patents. It's likely a marketing tool, but since these cars were fairly popular for a time, the term "Fowler boxcar" might be railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars". And if that was the case, the term IS correct.
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL
     


Dennis Storzek
 

 



---In STMFC@..., <stmfc@...> wrote:
As a random factoid: William Fowler calls his cars "cars of the Fowler type" in at least one of these patents. It's likely a marketing tool, but since these cars were fairly popular for a time, the term "Fowler boxcar" might be railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars". And if that was the case, the term IS correct.
 
Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL

Thanks Ray. Nice that these patents are easily viewable now.

I'm not going to have a lot of time to pursue this discussion for the next few days, but let me make a couple comments:

1. If the term "Fowler boxcar" was railroad industry shorthand to denote "short single sheathed boxcars" we would be seeing multiple references to the same in period trade press. We are not, which leads me to believe that Mr. Fowler's hype had little impact on the industry.

2. Keep in mind you can say just about anything in the description portion of a patent, present drawings of typical applications, including showing items which are either "prior art" or even things for which others hold patents. The purpose of this section is to describe the problem your invention purports to solve. The actual patent is what is described in the claims. With just a cursory reading, the claims in the 1908 and 1913 patents all pertain to ways to tighten the boards if they should shrink after the car is in service. The 1915 patent claims some sort of steel panel side construction which I have never seen actually used.

As I said earlier, Mr. Fowler's patents are unfortunately solutions in search of a problem.

Dennis Storzek
     


Robert kirkham
 

Hi Daniel,
 
slow progress on the printed parts, but progress indeed!
 
Re the GT’s 6’ door cars, I do not have actual blue print drawings or equivalent quality measurements from surviving examples (was still on the learning curve when I got really excited about these cars.  C’est la vie). 
 
Given they were not all built at once, even one set of drawings or measurements may fail to provide a complete answer to your question.  From a car at the West Coast Railway Association, I have a very poor set of measurements I rushed one day – (need to return and do it right).    They are hardly worth reporting here as I can’t tell where the obvious errors must be.  Also, I did not mark whether I was using a centre line for vertical posts or was using the exposed edge of the Z braces.  But assuming a range of errors, the dimensions for side braces from left to right ends were:
60 3/4” from left end of the side to ~ centre line of 1st vertical,
58 7/8” from that ~ centre line to the ~ centre line of the next vertical,
55 3/4” from that ~ centre line to the door post, 
73 5/8” outer edge of door post to far outer edge of door post (or outer edge of door – not sure what I measured),
68 1/8” from door post to next vertical post ~ centre line (this must be a recording error as the car isn’t lop sided looking),
59” from ~ centre line to next vertical post ~ centre line, and
61 3/8” from centre line to the right end. 
 
I have photos of the cars I have seen and just gave them another look.  To my eye, while the diagonals are much closer to parallel on the 6’ door cars, they are not parallel.  Instead, the diagonal on either side of the door is slightly less steep i.e for a given rise, the angles by the door have more “run”.  This runs contrary to what I would have imagined just looking at he measurements above.  Looking more carefully at the photos, I think the gusset plates joining the verticals to the diagonal at the top of the car side are not all uniform width.  That is where the answer probably lays. 
 
A secondary issue is to what degree any of the cars I have photographed or measured have undergone rebuilding that modified some of the vertical post spacing and diagonal angles. 
 
So I guess I’d have to say that for now, I don’t have good info,
 
Rob      
 

Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: RE: Re:Dominion Cars
 


Rob,
 
Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet, Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly appreciated.
 
Cheers, Daniel
 
PS your 7/8 ends in S worked out wonderfully. Have you moved forward with any other Shapeways items that we discussed last year?
 
Daniel.


On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:07 AM, Robert Kirkham <rdkirkham@...> wrote:
 
I think there is a problem with the debate about whether to call the cars Dominion or Fowler. 
 
I guess because of Westerfield’s extensive line of kits and Swain & Clegg’s articles in Mainline Modeller in the 1980s, we tend to see a true category here – albeit with variants.    And the quality and extent of the contributions to the hobby from both manufacturer and authors make it easy to be respectful of that.   I admit that on account of my regard for these gentlemen I find it hard to choose between labels Fowler or Dominion and often use both, reversing the order I list the names . . . .
 
But . . . . for either of these suggested names the group of cars to which the name strictly applies does not encompass the whole fleet of cars we are trying to describe.    Dominion Car & Foundry has a claim as being a first manufacturer of cars of the basic shape and size.   But Nova Scotia Car, Eastern Car, CC&F, AC&F and probably others built cars we’d lump in this category.
 
Fowler has a claim because part of the original sales pitch/impetus to market the design focused on the (later demonstrated to be needless) attachment method.   To me, even if it were a universal feature in the category of cars, the sheathing attachment design isn’t a particularly significant feature by which to identify the cars – any more than it would be to call a car type a Murphy or Youngstown or Minor or Atlas or Universal.
 
The more carefully we look at the lots of cars produced, the more one learns there were detail differences that changed how the cars lasted.  I don’t have the  details in front of me at the moment, but I recall talking to Swain about how some of the cars produced were to significantly lighter standards and didn’t last as well in service.  Many were converted to stock cars or were early candidates for rebuilding.   I’ve measured and photographed a lot of these cars – and the variations are amazing (without even touching the 37’ v 40’ length issue).   How many bolster designs were used?   Not sure, but a few (start by looking at how they attach to the side sills!).
 
Differences of these sorts are substantial, not just details (although the detail differences are more easily identified in photos).  The designs went through evolutions in terms of weight and attachment of the steel components.  The evolution significantly impacted wear and longevity.  I think a lot is lost when we lump them all together. 
 
As a result, I suggest that accurate description of all cars in the group is impractical unless you want to use something vague like “36’ and 40’ riveted steel frame composite boxcars from the early nineteen tens and twenties”.  It leads me to doubt the appropriateness of treating them as a single type. 
 
And so I think we should take a step back from the debate about what name to call them and ask whether it serves us well to treat all the cars in the category as a type.   I don’t think it does.
 
Rob Kirkham     
 


 
--
Daniel McConnachie


Don <riverman_vt@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Daniel McConnachie <mcconnachie.daniel@...> wrote:

Rob,

Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in
regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been
produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but
what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of
GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at
many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet,
Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified
because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on
CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There
is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the
diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were
converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly
appreciated.

Cheers, Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Can't state for the preserved Dominion cars because there are
a number of them out there of which I am not aware. There are, however, a nunber of photos depicting cars with the non-parallel braces that concern you. These are perfectly prototypical cars that I suspect we can blame the CPR for. While most roads ordering Dominion cars, at least after the initial orders, seem to have opted for the more useful 6 ft. doors, the ultra conservative at that time CPR still insisted on 5 ft. doors. Rather than redesign the entire frame for the side of the car someone was smart enough just to change the slope of the two braces closest to the door to move them each inward
6 in. at their top, thus providing for a door frame for a 5 ft. door rather than a 6 ft. one. To me this makes a lot more sense than driving up the cost of each car that would have resulted in making the number of changes required to do it any other way. It is just another variant of many in a prototype of which some 75,000 cars were constructed over the years.

Hope this is what you need, Don Valentine


Robert kirkham
 

I'm not clear what Don means about changes in design leading to GT cars. Did some thinking about it though - as follows:

If, by "moving them inward" Don means they moved the door posts nearer to each other - they would have created a narrower door. Wrong solution.

But he means that they moved the next pair of vertical posts either side of the door posts "in" (without changing 5' door width), you would increase the slope of the diagonals nearest the door and decrease the slope of the diagonals in the second panel to each side of the door. That could produce a closer to parallel look - depending how much you moved the posts. That may be close to the design thinking used by other CNR predecessor roads that originally were ordering CPR designs and then moved to a 5' door design with more close to parallel diagonal braces. (See the Speedwitch kit for a nice model of this later CNR predecessor road design). But I don't have information on their design process, so this is really just speculation.

I don't see moving a single pair of posts "in" as a good explanation for the GT 6' door design process. I've not checked number series or dates, but off the top of my memory I believe the GT designs were delivered before the later 5' door, parallel diagonal brace designs. Instead, I suggest that parallel diagonal braces were achieved by widening the doors and moving the door posts "out". That would narrow the panels adjacent to each side of the door, bringing the two diagonals closer to parallel.

As I understand it the GT was a very deliberate and in many ways "excellent" organisation, and I don't think they would have merely moved posts on a CPR design - if by that it is suggested they were doing minor tinkering. I think they would have worked through it carefully with people with mechanical engineering training determining structural materials, attachments and positions to support a car with a wider door (read "weak spot"). Not that I have any data from the era to support that conjecture either.

I think my real observation is this - between the
- CPR cars - with 5' doors and non-parallel diagonal braces,
- some early CNR predecessor cars - that follow CPR designs,
- other early CNR predecessor cars of the GT with 6' door and near parallel diagonal braces, and
- the later CNR predecessor lines 5' door, parallel diagonal brace cars,
you have at least 3 car designs - each with different structural/mechanical engineering considerations, but all give or take 37' long cars. And these are all Canadian cars. Get on to other other lines 37' cars, and then on to 40' cars, and you have further modifications as Dennis has described.

I agree with Dennis e-mails on this topic. I think a lot of significant design thinking is ignored when we start lumping these together.

I could probably be happy using Dominion design cars to refer to the CPR fleet and some early CNR predecessor lines cars of the basic same design. If other railways had cars similar in design - with 5' doors and non-parallel diagonal braces, I could apply the name to those as well. I wouldn't use it for later CNR predecessor lines cars with parallel diagonal braces, nor to the GT cars. And I wouldn't apply it to the 40 footers.

Is this all a tempest in a tea cup? For some it may be. But not if, as a result of the imprecision, a manufacturer misses these details and markets a hybrid kit that doesn't capture any of prototype cars well.

Rob Kirkham

-----Original Message-----
From: Don
Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2013 12:43 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] RE: Re:Dominion Cars



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Daniel McConnachie <mcconnachie.daniel@...> wrote:

Rob,

Given your extensive study of these cars, I have a question for you in
regards to the GT's 6' version of these cars. In S scale there has been
produced a 6' version in resin. These are great cars in of themselves but
what bothers me are the diagonal bracing. They are not parallel. Did any of
GT's cars have diagonal bracing that were not parallel? I have looked at
many photos and at some preserved cars and they all are parallel. Yet,
Staffords article on these cars points out the the braces were modified
because of the change in the door opening from the parallel braces found on
CNoR's 5' door cars and thus the angle is different between panels.. There
is also a 5' version available in S of the CGR/ICR version where the
diagonals are like CP's at are uneven. These I have seen. Many were
converted into stock cars. Your comments on this would be greatly
appreciated.

Cheers, Daniel

Hi Daniel,

Can't state for the preserved Dominion cars because there are
a number of them out there of which I am not aware. There are, however, a nunber of photos depicting cars with the non-parallel braces that concern you. These are perfectly prototypical cars that I suspect we can blame the CPR for. While most roads ordering Dominion cars, at least after the initial orders, seem to have opted for the more useful 6 ft. doors, the ultra conservative at that time CPR still insisted on 5 ft. doors. Rather than redesign the entire frame for the side of the car someone was smart enough just to change the slope of the two braces closest to the door to move them each inward
6 in. at their top, thus providing for a door frame for a 5 ft. door rather than a 6 ft. one. To me this makes a lot more sense than driving up the cost of each car that would have resulted in making the number of changes required to do it any other way. It is just another variant of many in a prototype of which some 75,000 cars were constructed over the years.

Hope this is what you need, Don Valentine



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

Yahoo! Groups Links