Date
21 - 39 of 39
Car designs and the USRA
|
Dave Parker
At the risk of picking nits, the 1915-17 design team had to have been an MCB committee. There was "another" ARA prior to the big merge in early 1919, but its remit was much more operational, not car design and standards. After the merge, the MCB functionally became "Division V -- Mechanical" of the new ARA.
If anybody is interested in these early days of the MCB/ARA, this 1921 publication is a nice overview (available at Hathi and perhaps Google Books):  -- Dave Parker Swall Meadows, CA |
|
|
|
Rupert Gamlen
The CB&Q tried to contest the decision when it was allocated 500 double-sheathed 40 ton cars (120500-120999, XM-24) in 1918, as it had switched to
single-sheathed cars in 1913. The only “doubles” built after that date were more XM-18’s, first built by Haskell & Barker in 1911, and they were delivered at the end of 1913. The USRA cars were the last double-sheathed ones that the company bought.
|
|
|
|
David
At the risk of picking nits, the 1915-17 design team had to have been an MCB committee.Railway Age, December 29, 1916, pp.1170-1: "THE question as to whether or not the railways of this country should have a standard box car has been more or less discussed for a long time. No definite action toward the introduction of such a car was taken until two or three years ago when several railway executives, chief among whom is E. P. Ripley, president of the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe, despairing of any decided action by the mechanical men, set the ball rolling and the American Railway Association, as a result, appointed a committee in May, 1914, to prepare designs for a standard car. Mr. Ripley is chairman of this committee and the actual design of the car is in the hands of a sub-committee of which George L. Wall is chairman." ... "The committee which is working on the design for the standard car has practically completed designs for the 60,- 000-lb., the 80,000-lb. and the 100,000-lb. capacity cars. The 60,000-lb. capacity car is of the double-sheathed type; the 80,000-lb. capacity car may be built of the doublesheathed type, the steel frame, single-sheathed type or the all-steel type, and the 100,000-lb. capacity car is of the allsteel type. Sample cars of these three types will soon be built, the construction of some of them having been started." David Thompson |
|
|
|
Dave Parker
I sit corrected. It does seem like a strange fit however. In its 1921 retrospective that I cited, the ARA touts its earlier efforts in service rules, demurrage, per diem, grade-crossing safety, signaling, etc., etc. IOW, everything but car design.
I wonder if the uncooperative "mechanical men" can be taken to be the MCB? -- Dave Parker Swall Meadows, CA |
|
|
|
I have been following this thread with interest. Here are additional data about the 1915-1917 committee and its final box car designs. ARA Program XM 4940. 6-1917 three ARA sample test cars of differing construction but same dimensions built by different builders. Would seem to be in anticipation of USRA designs. IL 40-6, IW 8-6, IH 9-0 or 9-1. Marks Builder Construction IC 175001 PSC? | |/|/|/[ ]\|\|\| | ATSF 32001 PUL | [ ] | PRR 38000 PRR | : : : [ ] : : : | Eric L On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 5:07 PM Dennis Storzek via groups.io <soolinehistory=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote: On Sun, Jan 29, 2023 at 11:52 PM, Tony Thompson wrote: |
|
|
|
following are photos of the three cars... PRR 38000   On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:42 AM Eric Lombard <elombard@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
ATSF 32001    On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:51 AM Eric Lombard <elombard@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
IC  On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 9:55 AM Eric Lombard <elombard@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 07:06 PM, Rupert Gamlen wrote:
It was considered that a deep, heavy steel fishbelly center sill was unnecessary on a car with steel body framing,Not initially. It's true that the initial steel framed SS cars built for the CPR by Dominion Car & Foundry had straight sills, but those were 36' cars. When AC&F expanded the design to 40' for both Soo Line and Frisco in 1913 they grafted a massive fishbelly center sill into the design. Canadian Car & Foundry did likewise on an order for Canadian Government Railways in 1916. In trying to research the origin of the design of the Soo cars a number of years ago I came across an article in Railway Review discussing concerns over weak underframes in the then new longer car designs. Four feet doesn't sound like much but keep in mind it's all added between the trucks; it's a 15% increase in the span between the bolsters. Some cars were also built after the end of USRA control with these massive underframes, but eventually the realization set in that the massive underframes were overkill. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
David
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.I don't believe I can agree with that at all. See below. David Thompson Railway Age, February 22, 1918, p.418 HENRY WALTERS, chairman of the Atlantic Coast Line and the Louisville & Nashville, who is acting as special adviser to Director General McAdoo, is in charge of the studies being made for the purpose of establishing standard designs of cars and locomotives to be adopted by the railway administration. Mr. Walters has held numerous conferences with car and locomotive builders on the subject and expects to have several more before anything has been decided. The committee on cars appointed last summer by the Council of National Defense, at the time when it was proposed to have the government buy freight cars for the railroads, has been delegated to investigate the question of freight car standards and a new committee on locomotive standards is to be appointed by Mr. McAdoo. The car committee consists of S. M. Vauclain, vice-president of the Baldwin Locomotive Works; W. H. Woodin, president of the American Car & Foundry Company; J. M. Hansen, president of the Standard Steel Car Company; N. S. Reeder, vice-president of the Pressed Steel Car Company and Clive Runnels, vice-president of the Pullman Company. Railway Age, March 8, 1918, pp.509-10 Greater progress has been made so far in the designs for standard freight cars than in those for the locomotives, both because of the greater degree of standardization which previously existed in the car field and also because some of the work done by the Committee on Standard Box Cars of the American Railway Association could be taken as a foundation. It is probable that the railroad officers and the builders will be able to agree on specifications for the cars to be submitted to Mr. McAdoo early next week. As has been previously reported in the Railway Age, the Railroad Administration first requested suggestions for the proposed standards from the committees representing the car and locomotive builders, of which Samuel Vauclain, vice- president of the Baldwin Locomotive Works, is chairman. These were appointed by the Council of National Defense last summer at the time when the plan for having the government acquire from 100,000 to 150,000 cars for the use of the railroads was under serious consideration. These committees were called into conference by Henry Walters, chairman of the Atlantic Coast Line and the Louisville & Nashville, who is in charge of the standardization investi- gation for Director General McAdoo, and their recommendations for both cars and locomotives were then referred to a committee of railway mechanical officers, three appointed by each Regional Director, and H. T. Bentley, superintendent of motive power and machinery of the Chicago & North Western and mechanical assistant in the Transportation Division of the Railroad Administration, as chairman. The designs submitted by the builders’ committees have been gone over carefully by the railroad committee, which has made numerous suggestions for changes as to types, dimensions, weights, etc., and has asked the builders to make the desired changes in their designs. When the revised designs are approved by the railroad committee they will be submitted to Mr. Walters and Mr. McAdoo for final approval. In addition to the members of the committee, as published in last week’s issue, a number of others have been called into the conferences, including F. H. Clark, general superintendent of motive power of the Baltimore & Ohio; C. A. Schroyer, superintendent of the car department of the Chicago & North Western; H. R. Warnock, general superintendent of motive power of the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul; J. C. Fritts, master car builder of the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; A. G. Trumbull, assistant to the general mechanical superintendent of the Erie; J. McMullen, mechanical superintendent of the car department of the Erie; W. O. Moody, mechanical engineer of the Illinois Central; John A. Pilcher, mechanical engineer, Norfolk & Western; W. J. Keisel, Jr., assistant mechanical engineer, Pennsyl- vania; F. W. Mahl, director of purchases of the Southern Pacific. |
|
|
|
Jack Mullen
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 04:06 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
It's true that the initial steel framed SS cars built for the CPR by Dominion Car & Foundry had straight sills, but those were 36' cars. When AC&F expanded the design to 40' for both Soo Line and Frisco in 1913 they grafted a massive fishbelly center sill into the design. Canadian Car & Foundry did likewise on an order for Canadian Government Railways in 1916.Hmmm. Other contemporary examples can be found to support the opposite opinion. C&NW's 40' Fowler boxcars, built by several carbuilders beginning 1914, had straight centersills. So did Rock Island's B-2 40' cars at about the same time. Okay, 1914 is a year later the 1913 date for the Soo cars, but OTOH, C&NW's 1912 40' DS cars had straight sills also. I think this all just goes to show the influence of different opinions in the Mechanical community, at a time when technological change was outrunning experience. Jack Mullen |
|
|
|
Scott H. Haycock
The SAL had three series of cars similar to the A.R.A. cars built between 1926 and 1930 that had fish belly center sills because the railroad apparently didn't trust the strength of the Pratt truss/ A.R.A. underframe combination.
I think Jack nailed it!
Scott Haycock
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 10:57 PM, Jack Mullen wrote:
I think this all just goes to show the influence of different opinions in the Mechanical community, at a time when technological change was outrunning experience.Indeed. This is the best summation of this whole topic. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
lrkdbn
I would like to question the idea that the USRA DS box derived its design from the NYC Lines 1917 DS auto car.
While the two cars were of broadly similar characteristics,(nominal 40ft,40ton,wood body,steel ends outside metal roof,fishbelly center sills) I don't think there is much evidence for a direct relationship. 1) The outside metal roof was a common standard in the industry by 1917-there is nothing particularly NYCL about it. 2) Likewise the wood body construction was the same as everyone used. 3) While the NYCL DID pioneer the Murphy steel end ca.1912, by 1917-18 it also was common practice on many roads. 4) While the fishbelly center sill was similar on the two designs,the rest of the underframe differed significantly. After 1912, all the NYC DS car designs used a light side sill tied to the center sill by several equally sized cross bearers. USRA used a heavy 9" channel as the side sill with 2 heavy cross bearers and 3 lighter channel crossties. I think this represents two distinctly different philosophies of design. 5) Although the NYCL built few DS box cars after the USRA period, they did build lots of reefer and stock cars. These all used basically the same underframe as the 1917 auto cars. If the USRA DS underframe was a development of the NYCL1917 underframe it would be expected that the later cars would use the USRA design, but they did not. I SUSPECT if we could ask a 1920's NYC designer , he would say that the company felt the USRA underframe was overdesigned for what it had to do.I do not have direct evidence of this. 6) There is no question that the NYCL adopted the USRA designs with some modification for most of the all steel box cars, hoppers and gondolas built in the 20's.This I think makes the continued use of the 1917 underframe on wood body cars more significant when assessing whether the USRA DS car was derived from NYCL design practice. Larry King |
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 01:29 PM, lrkdbn wrote:
4) While the fishbelly center sill was similar on the two designs,the rest of the underframe differed significantly. After 1912, all the NYC DS car designs used a light side sill tied to the center sill by several equally sized cross bearers. USRA used a heavy 9" channel as the side sill with 2 heavy cross bearers and 3Larry, While I developed kits of both prototypes, they were done years apart. I just looked at the drawings of the NYC auto car, and I have to say I agree with you. It's too bad we don't have a window to look in at the design process as these decisions were actually being made. I've never had any luck tracking down who was responsible for the underframe used on the Soo Line "sawtooth" cars, either. Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
jace6315
I think Larry's point 5 about NYCL using the same underframe on multiple car types explains their philosophy; they wanted a more universal frame that could be used on a variety of car types, potentially with different door openings (no heavy cross bearers to line up with the door frame). The benefit of a universal design is that you standardize on one design keeping your upfront and manufacturing costs to a minimum. The penalty is that you usually end up with a heavier design that's not optimized for any one car type. This makes sense if tare doesn't matter much to your shippers, if you've got a small (or busy) engineering team and/or if material costs are cheap (or labor relatively expensive). My guess is that in general wooden DS cars had cheaper material but higher manufacturing labor costs compared to SS cars but especially compared to all steel cars. An SS car in total was cheaper to buy than a DS car but at a heavier weight. If material costs increased relatively faster than labor then this equation changes; out goes the universal design and in come lightweight designs. Post-USRA, reducing weight on steel cars seemed to be one of the over-arching goals in part to make them more competitive with wooden DS cars which tended to be the lightest but also to bring material costs down. One of the main goals of the 1932 ARA design effort seemed to be getting a steel car design to 42,000 pounds before settling on 44,000 pounds as good enough. This discussion definitely takes me back 20 years or so when I worked for semi-trailer manufacturer Wabash National! We built four types of dry vans; FRP, sheet and post, exterior post and plate, each priced differently (we also should focused a little more on costs but that's another story). FRP, x-post and plate were more or less the same as SS boxcars in concept, sheet and post similar to DS cars. We offered these designs because customers had different preferences; some only looked at the initial price no matter what the longer term costs might be, others focused on the life cycle costs including scrap or resale value. There were others that needed cube or low weight above all else. Then there was the carrier that hauled cigarettes and only cared about color; they wanted the brightest trailers possible so that they could find them easily in case they got stolen. They also wanted them loud, who'd want to steal an ugly trailer to start with? Jim
------- Original Message ------- On Wednesday, February 1st, 2023 at 2:44 PM, Dennis Storzek via groups.io <soolinehistory@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Dennis Storzek
On Wed, Feb 1, 2023 at 04:46 PM, jace6315 wrote:
An SS car in total was cheaper to buy than a DS car but at a heavier weight.That does not appear to be the case with the USRA cars; Ike posted a letter from the Southern files a while back that quoted prices for each: $2919 for the DS car vs. $3050 for the SS car, a difference of about 4%. Your comments about common frames across multiple car designs got me to thinking; the only other use of the USRA DS boxcar underframe I can think of is the never ordered USRA reefer. In fact the drawing of the underframe presented in the 1919 CBD is of the reefer frame. I'm not particularly familiar with steel underframes for wood reefers; perhaps the design where the wooden carbody posts lap partway down outside the side sills is more common on reefers? Dennis Storzek |
|
|
|
ROGER HINMAN
The NYC underframe Larry King describes was credited to Rosco B Kendig, the Chief Mechanical Engineer of the NYC pre WW1; I’ve seen a couple of NYC drawings where this is referred to as the Kendig underframe. Besides surviving on many MDT cars into the 1950s, it was also the basis of all the Youngstown Steel Side rebuilds done in the 30s which also ran into the fifties
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Roger Hinman
|
|
|
|
lrkdbn
One other thing I should add- Having studied these underframes from a rivet counter modeling standpoint, the NYC Kendig underframes were not EXACTLY the same on all types of cars-they(unfortunately from a modeler's standpoint) did vary in exact dimensions and rivet counts.Luckily the NYCSHS and/CBD's have the drawings for
most classes of cars that used them.This is in contrast say to the PRR X23,X24,X25,R7family where AFAIK the underframe design WAS identical on all cars. Larry King |
|
|
