ADMIN: Freight Car Terminology


Charles Tapper
 

Not taking any sides here. But are all the terms used by the historian/modeler actually prototype? Or have some been generated to cover a lack specificity or concern on the prototype's part? Like a "Dartnaught" end and the like. Like the "phase" system with diesels and panels or ribs on a gob, it facilitates description for modeling et al, but was of no concern to the prototype. It was an Alco 120 ton 1000 hp switching locomotive without regard to radiator slat size or orientation. In discussion of modeling the radiator gear, a phase/mark becomes important, by way of example.

Just a thought. Hope it is dreadnaught and not dreadnought.

Charlie Tapper


On Mar 1, 2015, at 12:06 PM, "Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC]" <STMFC@...> wrote:

 

Andy Jackson wrote:

 

There are many words in the English language (& probably many others) that have multiple meanings. Just ask the professional football about using a "switch" to discipline his kid! So what's the sense in getting so righteous about whether "switch" or "turnout" is the correct word for a device that lets a train take a diverging route. Having been a conductor prefer to use what the thousands of real (not model) railroaders use. Besides has anyone ever heard of a "turnout" engine? LOL


      As our leader, Mike Brock, has pointed out, on this list we do try to use the terminology of "real" railroaders. But even if train crews do not use the word "turnout," track professionals do, and it's in official terminology lists for track engineering. "Turnout" is NOT a hobby term. Certainly a problem arises when different parts of the railroad industry may use different terms for the same thing. 
       In the case of freight cars (remember them?), this list can and does use the definitions of terms shown in each issue of the _Car Builders Cyclopedia_ at least as late as 1960. If you peruse those definitions, you will NOT find entries under "roof walk" or "outside braced," though these terms are in common use in the hobby, and at least have the virtue that their meaning is clear. Everyone has to decide if they want to use actual railroad terminology or not. Heck, call it a "thing-a-ma-jig" if you like, but do realize that you are then straying away from railroad terminology. And you will be at variance with the stated policy of this list.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





John Larkin
 

OK, these are present on all prototype trucks.  Question is, does anybody make this detail part in HO to add to the myriad of trucks that lack this detail - and rock more as a result in many cases. 

Thanks,

John Larkin


On Sunday, March 1, 2015 1:23 PM, "tgregmrtn@... [STMFC]" wrote:


 
Tim,
 
I believe the term for these, at least with the mechanical folks, is constant contact side bearing.
 
In the last three or fours (excuse the OT nature except for comparison)  years these have been removed and replaced by an upgrade that doesn't include the to lower rollers with needle bearing inserts.
 
Greg Martin
 
Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean
 
In a message dated 2/28/2015 6:09:42 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, STMFC@... writes:
One reason is that friction bearings really do exist and are present on most
freight car trucks -- but they are NOT the same thing as journal bearings.

http://theweatheringshop.com/images/trucks4.jpg

This picture illustrates them nicely -- See those items on top of the truck
bolster about 1/4 way in from each side? Those are friction bearings. There
are corresponding parts attached to each freight car's bolsters. These bearings
prevent direct contact between the static parts of the carbody and the trucks,
as the car rocks (tilts) from side to side as it rolls down the track.

Some HO trucks replicate these bearings, but most do not. The ones shown in the
photograph above are very accurate representations. You can find them advertised
in Car Builder Cycs, since they are a wear item and are sold by third parties.

Tim O'Connor




Mikebrock
 

Jerry Michels weites:

"However, I fail to see where the mention of switch vs. turnout or roofwalk vs. running board would prevent "as great a degree of accuracy as possible."

It's the practice of using terms...be they "roof walk" [ whatever that is ] or "weird little pipe"...that someone makes up that is at issue.

"If a person states he hand laid a #8 switch, would one actually be confused and think a #8 electrical switch was constructed?"

What's a #8 electrical switch?

"If we have to continue this discussion as it has been going on now for three or four days, how about instituting peer review for posts? Those whose sensibilities are greatly disturbed by other members egregious misuse of railroad terms could form a committee to review all
Oops, misread the calendar, it's March 1st not April 1st!"

Probably not...even on May 1st.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Mikebrock
 


Charlie Tapper has a good point, writing:

"Not taking any sides here. But are all the terms used by the historian/modeler actually prototype? Or have some been generated to cover a lack specificity or concern on the prototype's part? Like a "Dartnaught" end and the like. Like the "phase" system with diesels and panels or ribs on a gob, it facilitates description for modeling et al, but was of no concern to the prototype. It was an Alco 120 ton 1000 hp switching locomotive without regard to radiator slat size or orientation. In discussion of modeling the radiator gear, a phase/mark becomes important, by way of example."
 
IOW, if the car being modeled has certain physical elements not described or referenced by the real RR nomenclature, might it not be useful to generate one? I would think so but, of course, we then have the issue of deciding who defines it?
 
Several yrs ago I tried to see if the modeling community would define a description for steel doors on box cars AND steel ends. Alas, it never happened. Now I have to describe the number of ribs top down...or is it bottom up? Same with the doors. Doable but...
 
And, we aren't too far from arguing about the [ OHMYGOSH! ] lack of a defined distance from the point of a frog to the point [ or even the dreaded 1/2" ] where the closure rail becomes a wing rail...
 
Mike Brock
 
 
 
 


Schuyler Larrabee
 

Mike Brock notes:



And, we aren't too far from arguing about the [ OHMYGOSH! ] lack of a defined distance from the point of a frog to the point [ or even the dreaded 1/2" ] where the closure rail becomes a wing rail...



Mike Brock



Argue away, Mike, but PLEASE change the subject line . . .



Schuyler









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


Mikebrock
 

Schuyler Larrabee says in response to my:

"And, we aren't too far from arguing about the [ OHMYGOSH! ] lack of a defined distance from the point of a frog to the point [ or even the dreaded 1/2" ] where the closure rail becomes a wing rail..."

Note that I said we were not far from...

Rest assured that I won't need to change the subject line because we won't be discussing the infamous missing measurement here.

And, for those who have attempted to name every stream locomotive ever built, the thread on steam loco names is now TERMINATED. BTW, I was only pointing out in my comment regarding UP 4-8-4's that the names of certain RR subjects might differ from RR to RR.

Last, I don't find that the thread name RR terminology is incorrect when the message contains information on...uh...RR terminology.

Mike Brock