Date
1 - 20 of 39
Car designs and the USRA
Dennis Storzek
Jim DIck wrote:
First of all, what does a real railroad think of Single Sheathed vs Double Sheathed, read the attachments. And please note the date of the letter is right in the USRA era.Sure. Written when most railroad CMOs still believed in double sheathing, and at the dawn of the time when nearly everyone changed their mind. And NP, of course, was a late holdout on this topic, along with GN.
Tony Thompson
I think we've beaten the AI topic to death, so I've changed the subject line. First a word about how the decision was made as to which boxcars to build... Lane goes into this in his seminal work on the USRA standard designs, quoting, I believe, the minutes of the meeting where the vote was taken to put the cars in production. As I recall, the initial motion was made to only order the single sheathed car. In the ensuing discussion the objection was raised that this design required long lengths of clear lumber for lining, and perhaps the order would be delayed trying to procure enough for 50,000 cars, whereupon the motion was amended to order 25,000 single sheathed and 25,000 double sheathed boxcars, which subsequently passed. Absolutely NO discussion of the likes and dislikes of any railroad was quoted.
Giving this further thought, I wonder how exactly the decision was made as to exactly what kind of cars to design. The double sheathed car makes sense; a very conservative, almost antiquated design, that seems to borrow heavily from a series of automobile cars the NYCS had built the previous year; this was the safe bet. The single sheathed car was much more 'cutting edge' with its pressed steel framing members and straight center sill. The all steel car? I can't believe that anyone seriously thought that it was the solution to the war emergency; it appears to me that someone was using the committee to design a state-of-the-art prototype to be copied after the war. It would be interesting to see what was discussed when these decisions were made. I wonder if any more meeting minutes survive?
Dennis Storzek
Scott H. Haycock
Dennis Storzek wrote:
... I wonder how exactly the decision was made as to exactly what kind of cars to design....
I'm just guessing here, but couldn't the change in the railroad's thinking about which of the two designs was preferable coincide with the realization that you don't need exterior sheathing with steel structural framing?
Wood framed cars were the way it had been done in the past, so they were a proven, dependable design. Metal framing members were a newer way of doing it, and it may have taken a while to catch on.
I'm thinking of the first FT's and how it took the railroad's a while to realize they were more useful if you replaced the drawbars with couplers!
Kenneth Montero
Interesting note: all of the "sample" cars were constructed with flat steel ends, yet the production cars all had corrugated ends.
Ken Montero
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Ken Montero
On 01/29/2023 8:12 PM David via groups.io <jaydeet2001@...> wrote:
Pics:
Kenneth Montero
Dennis,
Please excuse my ignorance.
Please provide Mr. Lane's first name and the title of his publication that you describe in your email (below) regarding USRA standard designs. It sounds like it would be interesting to read.
Ken Montero
On 01/29/2023 7:33 PM Dennis Storzek via groups.io <soolinehistory@...> wrote:
Jim DIck wrote:
First of all, what does a real railroad think of Single Sheathed vs Double Sheathed, read the attachments. And please note the date of the letter is right in the USRA era.Sure. Written when most railroad CMOs still believed in double sheathing, and at the dawn of the time when nearly everyone changed their mind. And NP, of course, was a late holdout on this topic, along with GN.
Tony Thompson
I think we've beaten the AI topic to death, so I've changed the subject line. First a word about how the decision was made as to which boxcars to build... Lane goes into this in his seminal work on the USRA standard designs, quoting, I believe, the minutes of the meeting where the vote was taken to put the cars in production. As I recall, the initial motion was made to only order the single sheathed car. In the ensuing discussion the objection was raised that this design required long lengths of clear lumber for lining, and perhaps the order would be delayed trying to procure enough for 50,000 cars, whereupon the motion was amended to order 25,000 single sheathed and 25,000 double sheathed boxcars, which subsequently passed. Absolutely NO discussion of the likes and dislikes of any railroad was quoted.
Giving this further thought, I wonder how exactly the decision was made as to exactly what kind of cars to design. The double sheathed car makes sense; a very conservative, almost antiquated design, that seems to borrow heavily from a series of automobile cars the NYCS had built the previous year; this was the safe bet. The single sheathed car was much more 'cutting edge' with its pressed steel framing members and straight center sill. The all steel car? I can't believe that anyone seriously thought that it was the solution to the war emergency; it appears to me that someone was using the committee to design a state-of-the-art prototype to be copied after the war. It would be interesting to see what was discussed when these decisions were made. I wonder if any more meeting minutes survive?
Dennis Storzek
Tony Thompson
David Thompson wrote:I wonder how exactly the decision was made as to exactly what kind of cars to design.
The USRA box car designs were fairly minor modifications of the three ARA sample cars built in 1917: ATSF 32001 (double-sheathed), IC 175001 (single-sheathed), and PRR 38000 (steel-sheathed).There was an ARA committee working toward a “recommended standard” box car, from 1915 to 1917. The USRA Car Committee simply took over their work and made a few tweaks.
Tony Thompson
tony@...
Chris Barkan
Ken et al, here is the complete reference to the Lane USRA article.
USRA Freight Cars: An Experiment in Standardization
USRA Freight Cars: An Experiment in Standardization
James E. Lane
Railroad History , Spring 1973, No. 128 (Spring 1973), pp. 5-33
Railway & Locomotive Historical Society (R&LHS)
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/43525265
--
Chris BarkanChampaign, IL
Eric Hansmann
I picked up a copy of that Railroad History issue several years ago. Some of the data can be found on a resource page through my blog. I focused on the final USRA car assignments using a few tables.
http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/usra-freight-car-assignments/
http://designbuildop.hansmanns.org/usra-freight-car-assignments/
The original article is very interesting and worth the download or finding a used copy.
Eric Hansmann
Media, PA
Media, PA
On 01/30/2023 5:21 AM EST Chris Barkan <cplbarkan@...> wrote:Ken et al, here is the complete reference to the Lane USRA article.
USRA Freight Cars: An Experiment in StandardizationJames E. LaneRailroad History , Spring 1973, No. 128 (Spring 1973), pp. 5-33Railway & Locomotive Historical Society (R&LHS)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/43525265--Chris Barkan
Champaign, IL
George Eichelberger
It may have been that financial issues relating to acquiring USRA equipment limited some roads’ interest.
Here is one example from the Southern Railway Presidents’ Files, Box 363, File 9076 in the SRHA archives. Costs, the Depression and the cars’ basic design led to the scrapping of many of the USRA gondolas the SR did acquire when their leases/finance terms expired. (There were other series of similar cars not acquired through USRA financing that survived.)
Ike
Here is one example from the Southern Railway Presidents’ Files, Box 363, File 9076 in the SRHA archives. Costs, the Depression and the cars’ basic design led to the scrapping of many of the USRA gondolas the SR did acquire when their leases/finance terms expired. (There were other series of similar cars not acquired through USRA financing that survived.)
Ike
Kenneth Montero
Chris,
Thank you.
Ken Montero
On 01/30/2023 5:21 AM Chris Barkan <cplbarkan@...> wrote:
Ken et al, here is the complete reference to the Lane USRA article.
USRA Freight Cars: An Experiment in StandardizationJames E. LaneRailroad History , Spring 1973, No. 128 (Spring 1973), pp. 5-33Railway & Locomotive Historical Society (R&LHS)Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/43525265--Chris Barkan
Champaign, IL
Dennis Storzek
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 09:54 AM, George Eichelberger wrote:
One thing I noticed from a fresh viewing of the tables Eric presented, is the simpler DS cars allowed more car builders to participate. Laconia Car Co., Lenoir Car Works, Liberty Car & Equip., Keith Car & Mfg., and McGuire-Cummings Mfg. were all small firms, mostly trolley builders and contract repair shops that built few if any of the other USRA cars.
Dennis Storzek
The Southern files on "USRA" cars include comments, from various sources, on the single and double sheathed designs as well as the need for cars "allocated" to the railroads. (I'd like to read the R&LHS article and see how it corresponds to that material.)At the corporate level I believe the resistance to accepting the allocations was mainly due to reluctance to take on more debt for what was felt to be a temporary situation (war traffic). After all, the USRA wasn't giving the cars to the railroads, nor was it a temporary deal, the roads were expected to pay for the cars.
One thing I noticed from a fresh viewing of the tables Eric presented, is the simpler DS cars allowed more car builders to participate. Laconia Car Co., Lenoir Car Works, Liberty Car & Equip., Keith Car & Mfg., and McGuire-Cummings Mfg. were all small firms, mostly trolley builders and contract repair shops that built few if any of the other USRA cars.
Dennis Storzek
George Eichelberger
Note attached re box car costs. 40 ton Dbl. sheathed, rather than 50 ton single sheathed cars cost less but Southern was simply not interested (debt and cars would not be needed after the War). Prior correspondence from the Southern explained it did not need 50-T cars as the average load it carried in box cars was 17 tons!
Ike
Ike
Hi,
I don't know if it is true - or simply a persistent and often repeated rumor - but I've
heard many times from many different sources (model RRs) that one of the
reasons for the GN doing double-sheathed cars was to be 'friendly' to its many
online customers that made or sold that product. The only reason why I 'waffle'
on the veracity of that is because I've never seen anything that even remotely
resembles a "substantiating fact" such as an agreement between GN and a
customer. Nor, for that matter, not even records of the GN receiving plywood
from its customers. Did they - quite probably ... just saying I haven't seen the
hard evidence.
- Jim in the PNW
I don't know if it is true - or simply a persistent and often repeated rumor - but I've
heard many times from many different sources (model RRs) that one of the
reasons for the GN doing double-sheathed cars was to be 'friendly' to its many
online customers that made or sold that product. The only reason why I 'waffle'
on the veracity of that is because I've never seen anything that even remotely
resembles a "substantiating fact" such as an agreement between GN and a
customer. Nor, for that matter, not even records of the GN receiving plywood
from its customers. Did they - quite probably ... just saying I haven't seen the
hard evidence.
- Jim in the PNW
It could very well be true about lumber industries. The last double sheathed box cars
were built during the great depression of the 1930's and buying all-steel cars would be
basically sending hard cash EAST rather than keeping at least some of that money in the
form of wages in GN and NP territory. They also bought wood running boards right up
to the rule change that required steel running boards.
On 1/30/2023 1:50 PM, Jim Betz wrote:
Hi,
I don't know if it is true - or simply a persistent and often repeated rumor - but I've
heard many times from many different sources (model RRs) that one of the
reasons for the GN doing double-sheathed cars was to be 'friendly' to its many
online customers that made or sold that product. The only reason why I 'waffle'
on the veracity of that is because I've never seen anything that even remotely
resembles a "substantiating fact" such as an agreement between GN and a
customer. Nor, for that matter, not even records of the GN receiving plywood
from its customers. Did they - quite probably ... just saying I haven't seen the
hard evidence.
- Jim in the PNW
--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts
Dennis Storzek
On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:52 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
Dennis Storzek
There was an ARA committee working toward a “recommended standard” box car, from 1915 to 1917. The USRA Car Committee simply took over their work and made a few tweaks.The tweaks were more than minor, and not just the ends (which was indeed minor). The DS car had the frame narrowed, the connection between car posts and side sill revised, and lost its Z bar eaves. The SS car had custom pressings substituted for the structural shapes used on the ARA car, and also appears to have lost the Z bar eave. The all steel car seems to have had the troublesome channel side sill substituted for the angle section that the ARA eventually went back to fifteen years later after thousands of X29 and similar cars needed patching. It almost looks like the ARA team got sent home, to be replaced by the second string. I don't know who exactly was on the USRA design team, but at least the DS and all steel car bear an uncanny resemblance to NYCS practice of the time.
Dennis Storzek
Dennis Storzek
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 12:47 PM, George Eichelberger wrote:
One thing I noticed from the assignment lists Eric presented; SS cars tended to go to roads that had already purchased SS cars. The roads that had not yet done so, for whatever reason, tended to take more of what they were familiar with. They say familiarity breeds contempt... I'm not so sure that applies here, but familiarly also breeds assurance that all your RIP tracks can deal with repairs expeditiously, and that's a good feeling to have given the record traffic levels.
Dennis Storzek
Note attached re box car costs. 40 ton Dbl. sheathed, rather than 50 ton single sheathed cars cost less but Southern was simply not interested (debt and cars would not be needed after the War). Prior correspondence from the Southern explained it did not need 50-T cars as the average load it carried in box cars was 17 tons!They obviously were NOT in the market for more boxcars. On the other hand, was the 4.4% discount on the DS cars enough to sway other roads? Who knows?
One thing I noticed from the assignment lists Eric presented; SS cars tended to go to roads that had already purchased SS cars. The roads that had not yet done so, for whatever reason, tended to take more of what they were familiar with. They say familiarity breeds contempt... I'm not so sure that applies here, but familiarly also breeds assurance that all your RIP tracks can deal with repairs expeditiously, and that's a good feeling to have given the record traffic levels.
Dennis Storzek