Date
1 - 16 of 16
Prototype for Athearn 65' Mill Gondola
|
This topic was previously discussed in a 2008 post entitled "Athearn C&NW 65 ft mill gon" https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/topic/17201656#61860
but I wanted to start a new post with a more generic title. In the previous post, Ben Hom, helpfully points to an article by Richard Hendrickson in the February 2006 issue of Railroad Model Journal (pp 16-21) https://magazine.trainlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/rmj_200602.pdf In that article Richard identifies the original prototype for these as follows: "In April 1941 General American delivered another fifty 65-foot 6-inch mill gondolas to the Santa Fe, designated class Ga-55 and numbered 170925-170974, which were of the same design as the previous two Santa Fe classes except that they had National Type B-1 trucks" and later states that in 1941 the AAR Car Construction Committee selected the Santa Fe Ga-55 class as their recommended practice for these long mill gons. From photos, I think that the Athearn car appears to conform well to the several ATSF classes of these cars, and several other roads as well (not withstanding different trucks on some). However, in studying the photos of some of the prototype cars, I noticed a difference among them that I don't think Richard mentioned. The angled portion of the fishbelly side sill on the AAR/ATSF Ga 55 design is bounded by 6 vertical stakes (5 "panels") like the Athearn car; however, on several roads' cars this same angled section of the fishbelly side sill is bounded by only 5 stakes (4 "panels"). One can clearly see this on the CG car on page 17 of the article, the L&N and RI cars on page 19, on the SOU car on page 21, and perhaps on some of the others. I wondered if the common thread between those cars was that they were all built by Greenville, but I think I see some attributed to them that have the 6 stake configuration (I may be incorrect about this and welcome any clarification). Besides my curiosity about the variation in designs, it has implications for which prototypes the Athearn car is correct for. It would seem correct for ATSF and SP, and probably some others, but Athearn also offers it lettered for CG, which is incorrect (see attached photos of the model and prototype). Besides the side sill configuration, the Athearn car's end does not match the CG car, and it has a brake wheel rather than a brake lever like the prototype. These latter two items are relatively easily corrected, but the carbody configuration is not. I also note that the Athearn end and handbrake do appear to match the ATSF car. Perhaps this is all well known among readers of this list but I looked for more discussion of it in previous posts and found none. I welcome any further information or corrections on this topic. Thanks! -- Chris Barkan Deerfield, MA |
|
|
|
WILLIAM PARDIE
Thank you Chris for resurrecting this [post. A detaoil photo that I would like to have istof the latch mechanism for thew drop ends. Also a definite answer as to the orientation of the brake reservoir.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
The drawing from Model Railroader has it parallel to the center sill. ATSF p;ractice was to have it perpendicular to the center sill/ Thans for any help. \ Biull P:ardie
|
|
|
|
Chris Barkan
Thanks for mentioning the brake reservoir question Bill. Do any of our ATSF friends have an answer or a source to check for this?
-- Chris Barkan Deerfield, MA |
|
|
|
Curt Fortenberry
Here's the handbrake on the ARR mill gons (ex DRGW) of WW2 vintage. Curt Fortenberry   |
|
|
|
Todd Horton
Chris, I was aware of the C of G car not being correct for the Athearn model. Do you know if any other roads used the same car body design as the Greenville built C of G cars? Todd Horton
On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 11:25:48 AM EST, Chris Barkan <cplbarkan@...> wrote:
This topic was previously discussed in a 2008 post entitled "Athearn C&NW 65 ft mill gon" https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/topic/17201656#61860 but I wanted to start a new post with a more generic title. In the previous post, Ben Hom, helpfully points to an article by Richard Hendrickson in the February 2006 issue of Railroad Model Journal (pp 16-21) https://magazine.trainlife.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/rmj_200602.pdf In that article Richard identifies the original prototype for these as follows: "In April 1941 General American delivered another fifty 65-foot 6-inch mill gondolas to the Santa Fe, designated class Ga-55 and numbered 170925-170974, which were of the same design as the previous two Santa Fe classes except that they had National Type B-1 trucks" and later states that in 1941 the AAR Car Construction Committee selected the Santa Fe Ga-55 class as their recommended practice for these long mill gons. From photos, I think that the Athearn car appears to conform well to the several ATSF classes of these cars, and several other roads as well (not withstanding different trucks on some). However, in studying the photos of some of the prototype cars, I noticed a difference among them that I don't think Richard mentioned. The angled portion of the fishbelly side sill on the AAR/ATSF Ga 55 design is bounded by 6 vertical stakes (5 "panels") like the Athearn car; however, on several roads' cars this same angled section of the fishbelly side sill is bounded by only 5 stakes (4 "panels"). One can see clearly this on the CG car on page 17 of the article, the L&N and RI cars on page 19, on the SOU car on page 21, and perhaps on some of the others. I wondered if the common thread between those cars was that they were all built by Greenville, but I think I see some attributed to them that have the 6 stake configuration (I may be incorrect about this and welcome any clarification). Besides my curiosity about the variation in designs, it has implications for which prototypes the Athearn car is correct for. It would seem correct for ATSF and SP, and probably some others, but Athearn also offers it lettered for CG, which is incorrect (see attached photos of the model and prototype). Besides the side sill configuration, the Athearn car's end does not match the CG car, and it has a brake wheel rather than a brake lever like the prototype. These latter two items are relatively easily corrected, but the carbody configuration is not. I also note that the Athearn end and handbrake do appear to match the ATSF car. Perhaps this is all well known among readers of this list but I looked for more discussion of it in previous posts and found none. I welcome any further information or corrections on this topic. Thanks! -- Chris Barkan Deerfield, MA |
|
|
|
Eric Hansmann
I had thought the Athearn mill gon was good for a WM prototype, too.I do not have my WM gondola book handy for reference.
IIRC, they never produced it in WM paint and lettering.
Eric Hansmann
Media, PA
|
|
|
|
prr282
Sure did produce it for Western Maryland, but the color was terrible.
|
|
|
|
Steve SANDIFER
The problem is finding photos that show the reservoir. A photo of GA-108 blt. In 1958 shows it parallel with the car.
J. Stephen Sandifer
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Chris Barkan
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2022 1:54 PM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Prototype for Athearn 65' Mill Gondola
Thanks for mentioning the brake reservoir question Bill. Do any of our ATSF friends have an answer or a source to check for this? |
|
|
|
Jack Mullen
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 01:26 PM, Todd Horton wrote:
Do you know if any other roads used the same car body design as the Greenville built C of G cars?The RMJ article linked earlier says the CG cars were built at the same time and to the same specs as SOU 52150-52169 Looking through the photos in the article, the cars with a 4-panel taper all seem to date from the '50s, while all from the '40s have the 5 panel taper. Design evolution perhaps. Richard's article doesn't mention the taper difference, tho it does note other 1950s features. Jack Mullen |
|
|
|
Eric Hansmann
I missed the later run. I had a Reading version from the first run, but I sold it a number of years ago.
Eric Hansmann
Media, PA
|
|
|
|
This is Richard Hendrickson's ATSF Ga-55 model (Eastern Car Works) -- which I now possess -- and the only thing Richard added underneath the car is stick-on lead weights to give it some heft. Richard was a firm believer in the idea that if you could not see it when looking at the cars on the layout, then there was no point in spending time, money and effort on that. I have a number of photos of 65 foot ATSF fishbelly gondolas and you literally cannot see any of the brake appliances even when viewing the cars at eye level. On 12/29/2022 11:11 PM, Steve SANDIFER wrote:
--
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
The 'taper' length has nothing to do with when the cars were built. 65 foot fishbelly gondolas were built for a couple of decades and there were numerous design variations. For example the UP G-70-1 and B&O O-60 for example have very short tapers -- It would be nice to have a model of one of those because of their distinctive appearance. The Eastern Car Works AAR gondolas are the same basic car as the Athearn AAR gondola, but the Athearn is more accurate because it's interior is also based on AAR gondolas while the ECW interior follows the PRR G26, which was ECW's first 65 foot model. On 12/30/2022 1:17 AM, Jack Mullen wrote: On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 01:26 PM, Todd Horton wrote: --
Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts |
|
|
|
Tony Thompson
Well said, Tim. I have a project of Richard’s, not completed, that was modifying the Athearn model to match a Santa Fe car. Just as you say, he had packed the underbody area (behind the fishbelly sides) with lead weights, no brake gear at all. |
|
|
|
Alex Schneider
The gondola sides function like bridge girders carrying the weight of the load to the body bolsters. Maybe someone reviewed the distribution of stresses with a different assumption about how the load was placed and found the longer taper concentrated too much
stress in a particular spot.
|
|
|
|
Chris Barkan
Todd,
In Hendrickson's RMJ article (see link above) he says that SOU cars were the same (not surprisingly) as the CG, and he may have mentioned some others as well. -- Chris Barkan Deerfield, MA |
|
|
|
Chris Barkan
As I mentioned in my initial post, I have an impression that many of Greenville cars tended to have the 5-stake, 4-"panel" taper, so their designer may have undertaken the analysis that Alex suggests. I do not have all of my resources at hand to check into this further. Some of the photos in the RMJ article are a bit "muddy" hence my uncertainty about some of the cars shown there. It occurs to me we could reverse the question and ask if any builder other than Greenville used the 5-stake taper design, rather than the ATSF/AAR 6-stake taper?
If anyone is aware of higher-resolution photos for the various roads that had these cars and could look at then, or post them, we might be able to develop a better understanding. As someone suggested it would be nice to have both versions available. -- Chris Barkan Deerfield, MA P.S. I was interested in acquiring one of the ATSF cars and found several on EBay for around $20 (or less) in case anyone else is interested. |
|
|
