Topics

Military loads - some photos attached

Steven D Johnson
 

Group,

 

Four photos attached. 

 

What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.

 

The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.

I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

 

 

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

 

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

 

Anyone have a better photo of this?

 

Dan MItchell

==========

 

 

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

 

Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.

 

I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …

 

1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.

 

2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.

 

3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.

 

In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.

 

Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.

 

Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.

 

Dan Mitchell

========== 

On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

 

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik

 

 

Bruce Smith
 

​Roco made a model of the Magor car you depict... that was actually the start of this thread and see Tony Thompson's blog, as he suggested earlier.  And note, both Roco cars are the subject of considerable discussion in the archives of this list as well.


Regards

Bruce Smith

Auburn Al


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
Sent: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 7:31 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached
 

Group,

 

Four photos attached. 

 

What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.

 

The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.

I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.

 

Steve Johnson

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.

 

I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.

 

 

Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.

 

In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.

 

Anyone have a better photo of this?

 

Dan MItchell

==========

 

 

On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:

 

Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.

 

I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …

 

1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.

 

2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.

 

3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.

 

In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.

 

Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.

 

Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.

 

Dan Mitchell

========== 

On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:

 

I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik

 

 

Richard Townsend
 

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
 
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
 
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
 
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
 
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
 
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
 
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
 
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
 
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
 
Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
 
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik
 
 

Tony Thompson
 

Length in fact was 54 feet.
Tony Thompson 


On Feb 5, 2019, at 7:25 PM, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...> wrote:

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
 
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
 
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
 
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
 
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
 
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
 
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
 
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
 
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
 
Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
 
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik
 
 

Jack Mullen
 

But the 39xxx series car in question is the 4-axle car shown carrying a truck mounted crane. It's clearly stencilled L 50.  Of further note, marked capacity is 160000, with a starred load limit also 160000.  The light weight is 45700 unusually low for a 70 ton flatcar. 

Jack Mullen

John Barry
 

Sighted yesterday at Washington Union Station one of the former USAX heavy duty flats.




John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA


707-490-9696 


PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736

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

On Tue, 2/5/19, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend=netscape.net@groups.io> wrote:

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 10:25 PM










For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks
the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't
suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series
with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and
appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and
Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are
longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake
pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.









Richard Townsend





Lincoln City, OR















-----Original
Message-----

From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>

To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>

Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos
attached















Group,





 





Four photos attached. 






 





What would be the best HO model to
represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to
be 8-53.





 





The newspaper clipping is from my
hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series
cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft.
Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee
Central line.





I realize it’s way out of the
group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam
era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would
be of interest while we’re on this thread.





 





Steve Johnson





 





 





 











From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
[mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel
A. Mitchell

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM

To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.











 





I found a photo on the
internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a
depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.








 























 











Unfortunately, the ends
of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of
buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered
USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are
older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars.
Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has
normal Buckeye trucks.











 











In an actual shipment
the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the
travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the
blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of
M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually
there are more blocks and more rods or chains.











 











Anyone have a better
photo of this?











 











Dan MItchell











==========











 











 











On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58
AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...>
wrote:








 











Your position is
reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or
one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center
6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.








 











I too have photos of the
M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat.
The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the
car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …











 











1) the M-103 Heavy Tank
was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48
Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height …
in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have
required the lower overall height offered with transport on
a depressed-center car.











 











2) For whatever reason
the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the
length of the vehicle's track, between the track and
flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised
the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread
weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such
timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s
6-axle “Roco” flat.











 











3) With the
depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The
tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the
car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead
crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a
“neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it
would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar,
and also tear-up the wooden deck.











 











In all cases, the tank
is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is
also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks
overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either
side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s
Technical Manual clearly states.











 











Tie-down of such a
vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of
MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into
several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and
between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the
tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of
large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like
12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items
from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine
guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and
strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun
tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.
 Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially
crated.











 











Nowadays they seem to
use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and
little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have
full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.











 











Dan Mitchell











========== 











On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21
PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik=aol.com@groups.io>
wrote:








 








I will disagree with
Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is
the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".



First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103
on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load
ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also
doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.



Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing
of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.
 I presume this drawing was presented as a typical
loading.



I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla
Army 6-axle flats.





Ed



Edward Sutorik

Richard Townsend
 

I've thought more about the 39510 50' flat. One could shorten a Proto2000 or Revell/Con-cor flat and end up with the right 50' length (at least roughly) and the right number of stake pockets. Which one you choose would depend on which better matches the configuration of the prototype's sides. And I forgot about the Tyco 50' flat with 13 stake pockets, which would make a decent stand-in. 

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
 
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
 
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
 
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
 
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
 
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
 
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
 
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
 
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
 
Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
 
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik
 
 

Richard Townsend
 

I checked the January 1959 ORER and the USAX flats in the number series 39500-39649 (150 cars) are listed at 50' long.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2019 8:38 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

I've thought more about the 39510 50' flat. One could shorten a Proto2000 or Revell/Con-cor flat and end up with the right 50' length (at least roughly) and the right number of stake pockets. Which one you choose would depend on which better matches the configuration of the prototype's sides. And I forgot about the Tyco 50' flat with 13 stake pockets, which would make a decent stand-in. 

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
 
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
 
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
 
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
 
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
 
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
 
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
 
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
 
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
 
Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
 
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik
 
 

George Eichelberger
 

Admittedly, this is not much of a photo but it shows some interesting details..and it was taken under unusual circumstances.

It is a MAIN stopped in downtown Reidsville, NC by David Driscoll 2-26-43. The loads appear to be in gondolas rather than flat cars accompanied by armed guards.

David Driscoll’s family owned a furniture store in Reidsville. This photo appears to have been taken with David standing in the store doorway. Taking troop train photos in 1943 was not a good idea so his photo location was probably not random.

The entire David Driscoll negative and slide collection is in the SRHA archives at TVRM. It contains very early color slides of Southern steam and hundreds more on 616 and 620 B&W negatives.

The photo is from a clinic I did at the CCB RPM several years ago on MAINS to and from the Charleston POE. It was posted on Google Drive but I will upload it again if anyone would like a copy.

Ike


gary laakso
 

Ike, please do load it again! 

 

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of George Eichelberger
Sent: Thursday, February 7, 2019 7:05 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

 

Admittedly, this is not much of a photo but it shows some interesting details..and it was taken under unusual circumstances.

 

It is a MAIN stopped in downtown Reidsville, NC by David Driscoll 2-26-43. The loads appear to be in gondolas rather than flat cars accompanied by armed guards.

 

David Driscoll’s family owned a furniture store in Reidsville. This photo appears to have been taken with David standing in the store doorway. Taking troop train photos in 1943 was not a good idea so his photo location was probably not random.

 

The entire David Driscoll negative and slide collection is in the SRHA archives at TVRM. It contains very early color slides of Southern steam and hundreds more on 616 and 620 B&W negatives.

 

The photo is from a clinic I did at the CCB RPM several years ago on MAINS to and from the Charleston POE. It was posted on Google Drive but I will upload it again if anyone would like a copy.

 

Ike