Topics

USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS


WILLIAM PARDIE
 


Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late
For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume
#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  Regretfully when these come out I just bought
issues as I needed them and never the complete set.

Bill Pardie
pardiw

B
billBi
Bilb
Blenoujgh to have a collection of the 


Tony Thompson
 

BILL PARDIE wrote:

Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late
For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume
#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  

    But are these not the "original USRA design" drawings, rather than the cars as actually built?

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






O Fenton Wells
 

Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember.
Fenton

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:
BILL PARDIE wrote:

Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late
For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume
#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  

    But are these not the "original USRA design" drawings, rather than the cars as actually built?

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







--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Benjamin Hom
 

Fenton Wells wrote:
"Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember."

Can't be the late 1970s, as Mainline Modeler wasn't in print until 1980.  January and March 1980 issues (reprinted in the Phoenix soft cover Best of Mainline Modeler series), and a significant source of misinformation on these cars, specifically, a conjectural lettering diagram (some with little basis in reality) of the roads who were allocated these cars.  Ertl used this for their line of cars, which resulted in the worst feature of these models.  Thanks, Hundman.


Ben Hom


O Fenton Wells
 

Not bad for an old guy, at least the info was in Mainline Modeler at some time, right wrong or indifferent.
Fenton

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:59 PM Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:
Fenton Wells wrote:
"Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember."

Can't be the late 1970s, as Mainline Modeler wasn't in print until 1980.  January and March 1980 issues (reprinted in the Phoenix soft cover Best of Mainline Modeler series), and a significant source of misinformation on these cars, specifically, a conjectural lettering diagram (some with little basis in reality) of the roads who were allocated these cars.  Ertl used this for their line of cars, which resulted in the worst feature of these models.  Thanks, Hundman.


Ben Hom





--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Benjamin Hom
 

Fenton Wells wrote:
"Not bad for an old guy, at least the info was in Mainline Modeler at some time, right wrong or indifferent."

Tell that to the manufacturers who got burned.  I'll bet Branchline had better uses for the money spent on fixing that 41 ft boxcar tooling.


Ben Hom


gary laakso
 

You are correct Fenton, in the January/February 1980 issue and the following issue featured a scratch built GN version.

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of O Fenton Wells
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2019 11:32 AM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

 

Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember.

Fenton

 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:

BILL PARDIE wrote:



Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late

For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume

#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  

 

    But are these not the "original USRA design" drawings, rather than the cars as actually built?

 

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

 

 

 

 


 

--

Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd

Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 11:32 AM, O Fenton Wells wrote:
Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember.
Fenton
We're going in circles here, Fenton. The Mainline Modeler drawings have been mentioned. While Hundman attempted to correct most the features that were included in the pre-production drawings widely published in the trade press of the day, but never made it into the production cars, he introduced his own errors, certainly including his rendition of the door hardware. His dipiction of original paint schemes was simply atrocious. 

Dennis Storzek


Tim O'Connor
 


Aren't discussions critical of vendors' business practices (or consequences of their alleged negligence)
prohibited from the STMFC list? We know Branchline followed an incorrect drawing... but there is such a
thing as "due diligence" too. ;-)

Tim O'



On 1/30/2019 3:13 PM, Benjamin Hom wrote:
Fenton Wells wrote:
"Not bad for an old guy, at least the info was in Mainline Modeler at some time, right wrong or indifferent."

Tell that to the manufacturers who got burned.  I'll bet Branchline had better uses for the money spent on fixing that 41 ft boxcar tooling.


Ben Hom


--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts


Bill Welch
 

Personally I am not very good at reading drawings plus over the years with the stories of inaccuracies of drawings in the hobby press, I only use photos to guide my modeling.

Bill Welch


WILLIAM PARDIE
 

As always I will defer to Tony's expertise on anything freight car related.  I believe that many railroads built their own cars from the USRA design.  Certainly the cars went through a number of incarnations once on line in brake gear and other appliances.  I do get confused, however, with the comment accompanying many comments in articles stating that "XYZ railroad TOOK DELIVERY
of a certain number of USRA box cars".  Did these railroads specify specific alterations to the original design?

Bill Pardie



Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone

-------- Original message --------
From: O Fenton Wells <srrfan1401@...>
Date: 1/30/19 9:31 AM (GMT-10:00)
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] USRA DOUBLE SHEATH BOXCAR DRAWINGS

Didn't Mainline Modeler did an extensive series on these boxcars in the late 1970's I seem to remember.
Fenton

On Wed, Jan 30, 2019 at 2:25 PM Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:
BILL PARDIE wrote:

Last week there was some discussion on the lack of drawings for the USRA double sheath box cars.  I was rather tied up so I hope that this comment is not too late
For anyone fortunate enough to have some of the old Train Shed Cyclopedias by Newton Greg there are drawings of both the single and double sheath cars in Volume
#3.  This series is a compelation of drawings from the Car Builders Cyclopedia and are much easier to handle than the CBC.  

    But are these not the "original USRA design" drawings, rather than the cars as actually built?

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







--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


Dennis Storzek
 

On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 11:40 AM, WILLIAM PARDIE wrote:
I believe that many railroads built their own cars from the USRA design.  Certainly the cars went through a number of incarnations once on line in brake gear and other appliances.  I do get confused, however, with the comment accompanying many comments in articles stating that "XYZ railroad TOOK DELIVERY
of a certain number of USRA box cars".  Did these railroads specify specific alterations to the original design?
No alterations to the cars in the original order, which were ordered by the USRA and assigned to different railroads, according to what the gov't perceived was their need for more cars. Remember, during this period the day to day operations of the railroads was effectively nationalized, so when the carbuilders shipped the cars on the gov't orders, the railroads took delivery. Unfortunately, the railroads still existed as independent corporate entities, who were expected to pay for the new cars. Not all were willing to do so, which lead to some re-assignments. Didn't really matter to the USRA as an operating entity; they just wanted more cars in the general fleet, and didn't really care whose reporting marks were on them.

After the war ended and the railroads were returned to the control of their owners, some roads did place additional orders for the USRA designs, but were free to make any modifications they chose. These later cars are typically referred to here as "USRA clones". The USRA specified inside height of 9'-0" was universally despised by the industry, who thought it wasteful, and most, if not all of the clones were ordered with a 5" lower inside height.

I'm not aware of any railroad that actually built clones in their own shops.

Dennis Storzek