The UTLX X tankers


Brian LaManna
 

List,

Now that Resin Car Works is introducing a 6500 gallon (and later) a 10000 gallon X tank car kit, as someone who doesn't own a tank car tariff book, I'm curious: how many cars of these sizes were built?  I guess, more importantly for my own selfish purposes, do we have a rough (or better) idea how many cars of each size were still in service by the early/mid 50s? 

Thanks!

Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB


Dave Parker
 

Brian:

My understanding is that 3480 of the 6500 gal cars were built, and 1500 of the 10,000s (and another 2000 in the 8000 gal size).

There is a 1952 publication by Union that summarizes the cars in service at that time.  It is not quite as quantitative as the tariff books, but it suggests that quite of few of the Class X cars were still in service.

Someone (Steve Hile?) may have taken the time to use the 1955 tariff book to come up with more exact numbers.   Also, if you buy one of the kits, there will likely be a history sheet included written by Steve that might more fully answer your question.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA




On Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:36 AM, "Brian LaManna brianlamanna@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
List,

Now that Resin Car Works is introducing a 6500 gallon (and later) a 10000 gallon X tank car kit, as someone who doesn't own a tank car tariff book, I'm curious: how many cars of these sizes were built?  I guess, more importantly for my own selfish purposes, do we have a rough (or better) idea how many cars of each size were still in service by the early/mid 50s? 

Thanks!

Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB



Bruce Smith
 

Brian,


Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types.


Regards

Bruce 

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL




From: STMFC@... on behalf of Brian LaManna brianlamanna@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:21 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] The UTLX X tankers
 


List,

Now that Resin Car Works is introducing a 6500 gallon (and later) a 10000 gallon X tank car kit, as someone who doesn't own a tank car tariff book, I'm curious: how many cars of these sizes were built?  I guess, more importantly for my own selfish purposes, do we have a rough (or better) idea how many cars of each size were still in service by the early/mid 50s? 

Thanks!

Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB




Dave Parker
 

Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA




On Saturday, October 28, 2017 3:44 PM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Brian,

Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL



From: STMFC@...
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 9:21 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] The UTLX X tankers
 


List,

Now that Resin Car Works is introducing a 6500 gallon (and later) a 10000 gallon X tank car kit, as someone who doesn't own a tank car tariff book, I'm curious: how many cars of these sizes were built?  I guess, more importantly for my own selfish purposes, do we have a rough (or better) idea how many cars of each size were still in service by the early/mid 50s? 

Thanks!

Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB






Bruce Smith
 

Dave, Folks,


Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.


Regards

Bruce 

Bruce Smith

Auburn Al



From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA






Dave Parker
 

Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA








Garth Groff or Sally Sanford <sarahsan@...>
 

Bruce,

On page 28 of John Henderson's CLASSIC FREIGHT CARS V. 2 there is a photo of UTLX 57801 still in service in 1969. The cutline says it has a 4000 gallon tank (my 1959 ORER is silent on this). Not surprisingly for that date, the car has cast trucks and AB brakes, apparently upgraded in 1955.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 10/29/17 11:03 AM, Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC] wrote:
 
Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA









dale florence <dwwesley@...>
 

I went to high School from 1958 thru 1962. I had to cross IHB Gibson yards to and from school.  All of the refiners, Standard Oil, Sinclair, City Services, and Mobil, sent a lot of tank cars thru Gibson. I used to look at the dates built while I waited for trains to pass. I saw many X Tank cars, dated from 1901, 02, 03,04, 05,06 etc. Never saw a car dated 1899, but close. 

Dale Florence



From: "Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]"
To: "STMFC@..."
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers



Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA












Steve and Barb Hile
 


There are several ways to approach this topic.
 
You can browse there as the car type, capacity and number series are all listed.  Caution:  just because the listing says xxxxx to yyyyy, it does not mean that all cars in that range were still extant.
 
The 1955 tariff does list car by car capacity, but there is no indication as to car type.  So, you almost need to work the two together, which I have been doing as part of my research.
 
In rough numbers, from the 1955 tariff:
 
6500 gallons.  Only 13 cars remain from the 1907 series 12751-13250.  However, more that 550 cars that were modified in the 1930's by the addition of heating coils and renumbered into series 57800-58599.
 
10000 gallons.  107 of the 1907 series that had been numbered 4800-5294 remained (these are NOT the new RCW car.)  Rather, 364 of the 5350-6349 series (the new RCW car) remained.  And 449 cars had had heaters added in the 30's to move to the series 51450-54299.
 
When RCW web listings are updated with the new cars, there will be an historical document on the Class X cars, just as there is on the X-3 model.
 
Before too long, there will be a book on UTLX Steam Era Tank Cars.  (Shameless plug.)
 
Hope this helps.
 
Steve Hile



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 10:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers

 

Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA








Schuyler Larrabee
 

Steve Hile is your man for this question. He gave a presentation at the Lisle RPM this last weekend focused on X-3 cars, which included a 10,000 gallon version. He also announced at the end that he’s authored a book on ULTX X-3 tank cars. I’m looking forward to getting a copy of that. I’m hoping he’ll have them at Cocoa.



Schuyler



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 11:14 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The UTLX X tankers





Brian:



My understanding is that 3480 of the 6500 gal cars were built, and 1500 of the 10,000s (and another 2000 in the 8000 gal size).



There is a 1952 publication by Union that summarizes the cars in service at that time. It is not quite as quantitative as the tariff books, but it suggests that quite of few of the Class X cars were still in service.



Someone (Steve Hile?) may have taken the time to use the 1955 tariff book to come up with more exact numbers. Also, if you buy one of the kits, there will likely be a history sheet included written by Steve that might more fully answer your question.



Dave Parker

Riverside, CA





On Saturday, October 28, 2017 7:36 AM, "Brian LaManna brianlamanna@hotmail.com [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> wrote:





List,

Now that Resin Car Works is introducing a 6500 gallon (and later) a 10000 gallon X tank car kit, as someone who doesn't own a tank car tariff book, I'm curious: how many cars of these sizes were built? I guess, more importantly for my own selfish purposes, do we have a rough (or better) idea how many cars of each size were still in service by the early/mid 50s?

Thanks!

Brian LaManna/Moncton, NB







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


Bruce Smith
 

Dave,


There were some restrictions on MCB class II cars.  They were not allowed to carry some cargos that MCB class III cars could (gasoline and kerosine, come to mind, iirc).


Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL



From: STMFC@...
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 10:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA










Dave Parker
 

Bruce:

Do you have a reference?

Both gasoline and kerosene are clearly allowed in Spec II cars in the 1920 ARA Specification for Tank Cars.

Many "inflammable" liquids were still permitted in Spec II cars in the 1938 ICC regs (CFR Title 49) as long as they met the pressure requirements and did not have anchored tank heads (an obsolete construction method largely gone by the teens).  Regardless, kerosene was not considered an "inflammable" at that time based on the table of such commodities in the ICC regs.

Neither Spec II or Spec III cars could be used for liquids with very high vapor pressures, although these regs were complicated because they could vary seasonally (because of temperature effects on tank pressure).  Casinghead gasoline is a good example I believe.

If things changed later on, I am not aware of it.  The 1949 version of the Title 49 regs is available on-line, but I have to confess I have not taken the time to slog through them (916 pages in all). 

Even if the use of Spec II cars for things like gasoline eventually became restricted, that would not have diminished their utility.  As Steve described, many of the surviving Class X cars in the 1955 tariff book had been retrofitted with heater coils; very useful for the more viscous commodities.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA




On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:56 PM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:


 
Dave,

There were some restrictions on MCB class II cars.  They were not allowed to carry some cargos that MCB class III cars could (gasoline and kerosine, come to mind, iirc).

Regards,
Bruce
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Sunday, October 29, 2017 10:03 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce:

I am not sure about "very few" Class X cars remaining in service in the mid-fifties.  I have 6 or 7 photos of Class X cars with AB brakes and/or CSF trucks. In fact, it's much harder to find an in-service photo of an X car with its original brakes and trucks.

AFAIK, there was nothing to limit the use of the Class X cars through the 1950s.  They were
ARA Spec II cars (single rivet rows) that were not allowed in new construction as of May, 1917, but they were allowed in interchange throughout the steam era.  Most of them were built between 1913 and 1916, so they predate the bulk of the Class X-3 cars by just a few years.

But, there is no need to speculate.  I don't own a copy of the 1955 tariff (too far in the future for me), but somebody who does could "easily" track down the Class X cars ins service at that time.  It's not a completely trivial task, as one would have to account for the renumbering into several series in the 50,000s to catch them all.  I wouldn't be surprised if Steve has already done this, nor if that information is included with the kit's history sheet.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA






On Sunday, October 29, 2017 7:18 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave, Folks,

Well dang, my bad. Didn't even notice that.  I guess I can replace my Roundhouse/Precision/Shapeways projects.   Obviously the answer for the type X cars in the mid 1950s there would be very few left in service. Given the photos in the blog, it appears that Frank has evidence that at least some were converted to AB brakes.

Regards
Bruce 
Bruce Smith
Auburn Al


From: STMFC@... on behalf of Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2017 6:18 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The UTLX X tankers
 


Bruce Smith wrote:

"Steve Hill gave general numbers built in message 130460, December 13, 2014.  In that message he indicated that the most common car was 10K with nearly 13,000 built.  The second place car was the 6.5K with more than 4000  and the third place car was the 8K with less than 2K built, of 2 different types."

All true, for the Class X-3 cars.  Brian's query was about the earlier Class X cars, the subject of RCW's new releases this fall.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA








Bruce Smith
 

Dave,

In part I based this on post #135723 by Elden Gatwood, as well as repeated references by others over the years on this list that ARA class II/ICC class 102 were restricted because of their construction from carrying certain cargos.  My point would be that the major use of tank cars post WWII was for refined petroleum products and thus the utility of a class II car would be reduced, and if you modeled one or more of these cars (as I certainly intend to do for my 1944 timeframe) then they need to be in the correct service (in my case, it’s no issue as I will have solid trains of crude oil).  

Ultimately, the question comes down to how many of these cars does a modeler need in any given era.  


Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Bruce:

Do you have a reference? 

Both gasoline and kerosene are clearly allowed in Spec II cars in the 1920 ARA Specification for Tank Cars.

Many "inflammable" liquids were still permitted in Spec II cars in the 1938 ICC regs (CFR Title 49) as long as they met the pressure requirements and did not have anchored tank heads (an obsolete construction method largely gone by the teens).  Regardless, kerosene was not considered an "inflammable" at that time based on the table of such commodities in the ICC regs.

Neither Spec II or Spec III cars could be used for liquids with very high vapor pressures, although these regs were complicated because they could vary seasonally (because of temperature effects on tank pressure).  Casinghead gasoline is a good example I believe.

If things changed later on, I am not aware of it.  The 1949 version of the Title 49 regs is available on-line, but I have to confess I have not taken the time to slog through them (916 pages in all).  

Even if the use of Spec II cars for things like gasoline eventually became restricted, that would not have diminished their utility.  As Steve described, many of the surviving Class X cars in the 1955 tariff book had been retrofitted with heater coils; very useful for the more viscous commodities.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Dave Parker
 

Bruce:

We can agree that the ARA Spec II cars were restricted from carrying certain cargoes, but I remain unconvinced that the more common refinery products (gasoline, kerosene, naptha) would necessarily be on that list. 

There were a number of criteria in the 1938 ICC regs:  safety valves, manway construction, and "outage" (i.e., dome volume).  If these could me met, inflammables such as gasoline could be legally carried.  BTW, the UTLX Class X cars had dome volumes ranging from 2.3 to 3.4% of the tank volume as built, making many of them particularly suitable for inflammables.

I revisited the 125723 post, and did not see anything that contradicts the above.  I did note some language concerning war emergency standards, about which I know nothing.  It appears, however, that they were more lenient than the pre-war ICC regs, and might be of some relevance to your 1944 modeling year.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA

 


On Monday, October 30, 2017 7:26 AM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave,

In part I based this on post #135723 by Elden Gatwood, as well as repeated references by others over the years on this list that ARA class II/ICC class 102 were restricted because of their construction from carrying certain cargos.  My point would be that the major use of tank cars post WWII was for refined petroleum products and thus the utility of a class II car would be reduced, and if you modeled one or more of these cars (as I certainly intend to do for my 1944 timeframe) then they need to be in the correct service (in my case, it’s no issue as I will have solid trains of crude oil).  

Ultimately, the question comes down to how many of these cars does a modeler need in any given era.  


Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith            
Auburn, AL
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Oct 29, 2017, at 11:27 PM, Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Bruce:

Do you have a reference? 

Both gasoline and kerosene are clearly allowed in Spec II cars in the 1920 ARA Specification for Tank Cars.

Many "inflammable" liquids were still permitted in Spec II cars in the 1938 ICC regs (CFR Title 49) as long as they met the pressure requirements and did not have anchored tank heads (an obsolete construction method largely gone by the teens).  Regardless, kerosene was not considered an "inflammable" at that time based on the table of such commodities in the ICC regs.

Neither Spec II or Spec III cars could be used for liquids with very high vapor pressures, although these regs were complicated because they could vary seasonally (because of temperature effects on tank pressure).  Casinghead gasoline is a good example I believe.

If things changed later on, I am not aware of it.  The 1949 version of the Title 49 regs is available on-line, but I have to confess I have not taken the time to slog through them (916 pages in all).  

Even if the use of Spec II cars for things like gasoline eventually became restricted, that would not have diminished their utility.  As Steve described, many of the surviving Class X cars in the 1955 tariff book had been retrofitted with heater coils; very useful for the more viscous commodities.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA



Dennis Storzek
 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that in 1953/54 UTLX lost all their 6500 gal type V tankcars that they were disinclined to upgrade to AB brakes. It seems to me that these small ca[pacity cars were most useful in the bulk oil distributor market, where small dealers were inclined to order small quantities. I wonder if it was apparent at this time that the small dealer business was shrinking, making Union Tank Line less than interested in buying new small capacity cars.

Dennis Storzek


Steve and Barb Hile
 

UTLX did add 2000 6.5K gallon X-3 tank cars built by ACF in 1936, the first new 6.5K gallon cars since 1916-17.
 
Steve Hile



From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 12:26 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The UTLX X tankers

 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned in this discussion is that in 1953/54 UTLX lost all their 6500 gal type V tankcars that they were disinclined to upgrade to AB brakes. It seems to me that these small ca[pacity cars were most useful in the bulk oil distributor market, where small dealers were inclined to order small quantities. I wonder if it was apparent at this time that the small dealer business was shrinking, making Union Tank Line less than interested in buying new small capacity cars.


Dennis Storzek


Tony Thompson
 

Bruce Smith wrote:

In part I based this on post #135723 by Elden Gatwood, as well as repeated references by others over the years on this list that ARA class II/ICC class 102  . . .


      Bruce, I've never seen any indication that the ICC takeover of the former ARA tank car standards included a class called "ICC 102." Do you have documentation on that? You are of course correct that if they HAD done so, they would have called ARA Class II by the name ICC 102.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Bruce Smith
 

Tony,

That’s what I get for trying to be inclusive ;)  Nope, no evidence.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Oct 30, 2017, at 3:22 PM, Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Bruce Smith wrote:

In part I based this on post #135723 by Elden Gatwood, as well as repeated references by others over the years on this list that ARA class II/ICC class 102  . . .


      Bruce, I've never seen any indication that the ICC takeover of the former ARA tank car standards included a class called "ICC 102." Do you have documentation on that? You are of course correct that if they HAD done so, they would have called ARA Class II by the name ICC 102.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history









Bruce Smith
 

Dave,

I did notice that the USG-A cars, which were also ARA class II, were allowed gasoline as a cargo...

Delving into this, I found “All About Tank Cars” as an Online eBook.  
Published by Standard Tank Car Co in 1921, this is a massive tome (870 pages) with some amazing information.  Around page 537 it discusses Class II specs and from this and other places, it appears that class II cars could be tested to a variety of limits that would then define the commodities they could haul.  So, unlike what I thought, there is no hard and fast rule for a class II car after 1917, but there is also no question that some class II cars were more restricted in what they could carry than class III cars.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Bruce:

We can agree that the ARA Spec II cars were restricted from carrying certain cargoes, but I remain unconvinced that the more common refinery products (gasoline, kerosene, naptha) would necessarily be on that list.  

There were a number of criteria in the 1938 ICC regs:  safety valves, manway construction, and "outage" (i.e., dome volume).  If these could me met, inflammables such as gasoline could be legally carried.  BTW, the UTLX Class X cars had dome volumes ranging from 2.3 to 3.4% of the tank volume as built, making many of them particularly suitable for inflammables.

I revisited the 125723 post, and did not see anything that contradicts the above.  I did note some language concerning war emergency standards, about which I know nothing.  It appears, however, that they were more lenient than the pre-war ICC regs, and might be of some relevance to your 1944 modeling year.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA


Dave Parker
 

Bruce:

Yes, the "All About Tank Cars" book is a wonderful reference that I have consulted frequently over the last couple of years.  The ARA Specifications are just a fraction of the information contained therein.

There is also a 1919 edition of the same book:

https://books.google.com/books?id=-GBCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22all+about+tank+cars%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj98o2qzpzXAhUpi1QKHZrHD0oQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false           

The differences are mostly nuanced, but I recall that the two books capture some changes in the lettering standards that date to 1920.

The tank car regs became even more involved when the ICC inserted itself into the oversight in 1927.  Some of what transpired I can glean from my 1931 CBC, but the full picture is better delineated in the first issue of the Code of Federal Regulations from 1938, Title 49, Part 80:

This website is funky in that you can only download 20 pages at a time.  The "meat" of the tank car regs is in parts 80.1 to 80.3, pages 959-1090.

Last, for the more transition-oriented, the Title 49 regs were updated and published in the CFR in 1949, Sections 71-90:




These references can be a real slog, but I think they are the definitive source for understanding the specs and regs for tank cars during our period.

Best,

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA







On Monday, October 30, 2017 2:14 PM, "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Dave,

I did notice that the USG-A cars, which were also ARA class II, were allowed gasoline as a cargo...

Delving into this, I found “All About Tank Cars” as an Online eBook.  
Published by Standard Tank Car Co in 1921, this is a massive tome (870 pages) with some amazing information.  Around page 537 it discusses Class II specs and from this and other places, it appears that class II cars could be tested to a variety of limits that would then define the commodities they could haul.  So, unlike what I thought, there is no hard and fast rule for a class II car after 1917, but there is also no question that some class II cars were more restricted in what they could carry than class III cars.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith            
Auburn, AL
"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Oct 30, 2017, at 10:39 AM, Dave Parker spottab@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Bruce:

We can agree that the ARA Spec II cars were restricted from carrying certain cargoes, but I remain unconvinced that the more common refinery products (gasoline, kerosene, naptha) would necessarily be on that list.  

There were a number of criteria in the 1938 ICC regs:  safety valves, manway construction, and "outage" (i.e., dome volume).  If these could me met, inflammables such as gasoline could be legally carried.  BTW, the UTLX Class X cars had dome volumes ranging from 2.3 to 3.4% of the tank volume as built, making many of them particularly suitable for inflammables.

I revisited the 125723 post, and did not see anything that contradicts the above.  I did note some language concerning war emergency standards, about which I know nothing.  It appears, however, that they were more lenient than the pre-war ICC regs, and might be of some relevance to your 1944 modeling year.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA