Topics

B&O 3086 hopper


Tim O'Connor
 


Would you call this a USRA clone? (very slightly different)
Also, why no B&O class designation? (W-whatever)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/352166417109

Tim O'Connor


Bill Welch
 

USRA 2-bay hopper have seven ribs.

Bill Welch


wdzwonchyk
 

Tim: That's part of a series of CNJ 8 rib 9 panel hopper cars built around 1920 or so, some of which were later leased to the B&O. Note that the apex of the center slope sheets terminate in the middle of a side panel, not on a center rib.
Wayne Dzwonchyk


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC]
To: stmfc <stmfc@...>
Sent: Sun, Nov 26, 2017 2:23 pm
Subject: [STMFC] B&O 3086 hopper

 

Would you call this a USRA clone? (very slightly different)
Also, why no B&O class designation? (W-whatever)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/352166417109

Tim O'Connor


wdzwonchyk
 

Meant to add that Funaro and Camerlengo make a model of this car.
Wayne Dzwonchyk


-----Original Message-----
From: dzwonchyk@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Sun, Nov 26, 2017 2:50 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] B&O 3086 hopper

 
Tim: That's part of a series of CNJ 8 rib 9 panel hopper cars built around 1920 or so, some of which were later leased to the B&O. Note that the apex of the center slope sheets terminate in the middle of a side panel, not on a center rib.
Wayne Dzwonchyk


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...>
To: stmfc <stmfc@...>
Sent: Sun, Nov 26, 2017 2:23 pm
Subject: [STMFC] B&O 3086 hopper

 

Would you call this a USRA clone? (very slightly different)
Also, why no B&O class designation? (W-whatever)

https://www.ebay.com/itm/352166417109

Tim O'Connor


Jack Mullen
 

No, I wouldn't. Would you?

It has 9 panel sides, (or 7 if you just count the full height panels between body bolsters. a convention which I find confusing), vs 8 on a USRA car. USRA hoppers have a post at the center, where this car just has a rivet line showing internal bracing in line with the crossridge.

It has end sills protruding beyond the end posts, in common with most pre-USRA hopper car designs. Use of a relatively light angle section  end sill located above the top of the center sill, instead of the heavier channel section sills found on most earlier hoppers is a significant structural improvement found on USRA hoppers.

If I'm reading correctly, the cubic capy is 1888, close, but not quite a match to the USRA 1880.

Further, I try to avoid using the term "clone" in this context. The term doesn't seem to have consistent usage in the railfan/modeler world, so the intended meaning isn't clearly conveyed. YMMV.

Jack Mullen


Jack Mullen
 

Rereading my last post, the second sentence sounds snide, and I didn't intend that. Perhaps "What relationship do you see that I don't ?" would better express what was in my head.

Jack Mullen


Tim O'Connor
 

Jack

I was merely trying to draw on the illustrious expertise of this group of legendary
freight car gurus. It is only natural I suppose for those who dwell in the clouds to
sneer at those of us still emerging from the primordial muck.

Anyway, thank you all for the help!

Tim



Rereading my last post, the second sentence sounds snide, and I didn't intend that.  Perhaps "What relationship do you see that I don't ?" would better express what was in my head.

Jack Mullen


rwitt_2000
 

Tim,

I missed this conversation so my reply is a little late.

These hoppers were built earlier ~1909.

Chris Barkan wrote an article about the CNJ hoppers leased by the B&O RR for the The Sentinel. There were multiple leases mostly through the 1950s starting in 1951 with cars returning to the CNJ and then different ones going to the B&O under a different lease. The date of 1956 notes when these cars first appeared on the B&O, and a year later more cars were added. This car represents one from one of the later leases.

From the B&O Summary of Equipment we find:

Date of the S of E

Class

Built

Numbers

Capacity

Inside Length

Tare Wt.

Number of Cars

1-56

CNJ

1909-41

3000-4599

50T

32’0”

 

1186


1-57

CNJ

1909-41

3000-4599

50T

32’0”

 

1527

1-58

CNJ

1909-41

3000-4559

50T

32’0”

 

1481

1-60

CNJ

1909-41

3000-4559

50T

32’0”

 

1124


The last S of E issued by the B&O was for the year of 1960.

The photo looks like one from the Paul Dunn Collection taken in Zanesville, Ohio

Bob Witt

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

Jack

I was merely trying to draw on the illustrious expertise of this group of legendary
freight car gurus. It is only natural I suppose for those who dwell in the clouds to
sneer at those of us still emerging from the primordial muck.

Anyway, thank you all for the help!

Tim



Rereading my last post, the second sentence sounds snide, and I didn't intend that.  Perhaps "What relationship do you see that I don't ?" would better express what was in my head.

Jack Mullen
 


Tim O'Connor
 


Now I'm befuddled Bob, because the car is clearly stenciled with a
built date of 6-20. Would a 46 year old car get a fresh paint job and
a new lease on life in 1955?

Tim O'



Tim,

I missed this conversation so my reply is a little late.

These hoppers were built earlier ~1909.


rwitt_2000
 

Well you are very correct Tim and I should look before I reply.

I do have other information showing that some of the 9-panels were built as early as 1909. I think I have a builder's photo of the CNJ hopper somewhere.

There is more potential confusion because the table entry of "Year Built" "1909-41" reminds me that the cars under the lease were not all the same type. The 1941 built date references the classic fishbelly side hoppers built by WM, RDG and the CNJ. Chris Barkan obtained memos detailing what cars were involved with the lease. I need to reread the article in The Sentinel, which is in the May/June issue 1992 and available on a CD from the B&O Company Store.

To completely confuse thingsI just found some more photos confirming that the series 3000-4559 included 9-panel hoppers, fishbelly hoppers and USRA 50-ton twin hoppers and maybe orthers. The Sentinel article explains all of this.

The other question about "new lease on life". Yes, it is plausible as some early hoppers were built with high copper bearing steel and lasted a long time. Sometimes railroad stripped them to their underframes and rebuilt them new bodies.

Bob Witt


Edward
 

A car built in 1920 would be 35 years old by 1955. 
It could still have another 5 years of service life before the '40 year limit' for interchange service comes up.
So a fresh paint and lettering job would be possible.
Ed Bommer


John Moore
 

The ban on underframe age was started after the focus of this list.  1970 seems to me when the age ban on underframe age in interchange service was introduced.

John B. Moore, Jr.
Albuquerque


Jim Mischke
 

I have this photo, it was taken by the late Paul Dunn in his hometown Zanesville, Ohio during 1955.  Car is a leased CNJ nine panel ribbed twin hopper, freshly repainted in B&O lettering.  Billboard "B&O" with large ampersand was superseded that year by a small ampersand.


This car was in the second leased CNJ hopper group, from 1955-1961.  Lease lasted about five years, all cars returned to CNJ by late 1961.  The lease was five years long, it took time to locate and pull them all from B&O service, some cars straggled on B&O property for a little longer than five years due to these logistics.   Some returned hoppers were relettered CNJ and returned to service, most not due to age and condition.