[Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] PRR X29B and X29D
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
My observations were only that. I cannot say for sure what all cases were, but from looking at pics and diagrams indicate.
I am not surprised the manufacturers chose a conventional layout. I just got interested after I saw the mistakes I had made, and thought about what Ben was saying, and what I was seeing.
Due to the odd arrangement of the cross-bearers on the X29, and the lack of change to the u/f in rebuilding, I think they kept that arrangement on rebuilding to X29B. The G.A. for the X29D looks like they did not relocate the cross-bearers either. I know they did relocate the cross-bearers for the E, F and G.
Finally, the BL car is good for the X29B and early D, with the short taper IDE, but the X29D has an overhanging roof, all of them. The late X29D has the long taper IDE. Also note from pics and spreadsheet where the X29D tack boards were.
Sorry it’s raining. We had a big hail storm earlier!
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Schleigh Mike via groups.io
Sent: Friday, May 7, 2021 12:07 PM
To: 'stmfc' <email@example.com>; main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] PRR X29B and X29D
Hello Elden & Group!!
This 'cheat sheet' is a great reference to help model well these interesting cars. Thank you for sharing this. In spite of it, I still have a couple of questions addressing the brake equipment. You have noted that the layout is per the drawing below and, without doubt, this is wonderful and seemingly applicable to the 'plain' X29 cars that received AB conversations of their KD brakes.
However, both Funaro & Camerlengo (F&C) kits No. 8160 for the X29B and No. 8310 for the X29D (early) as well Sunshine Models (SM) kit No.U1.1 for the X29B show the arrangement differently than that below. All those kits reflect the use of the rather generic layout like that of the original Cal-Scale arrangement. Especially obvious is the absence of the Penny's use of the 'pressure head' style of cylinder providing the fulcrum anchor for the 'floating' second lever. So the question is---Would this more 'conventional' arrangement have been applied to any of the X29 plain cars or perhaps to any of the "B" or "D" rebuilds? My expectation is "No." Elden's diagram is found in RP CYC No. 26, page 84 as well as the WrightTrack instructions for the X29D (late). Ben Hom's second Mainline Modeler article on the X29 included a drawing for the passenger equipped X29 and this is very close to Elden's but relating the 'signal' air line details. RP CYC No. 24 discussing the original X29 cars has several images showing the reservoir mounted transversely. This must have been a minority option as most photos seem to be per the Elden layout.
So, to be clear----
1) Are the F&C and SM instructions for X29B and X29D brake equipment layout simply wrong and is the Elden layout consistent for all these rebuilt cars?
2) Is the Elden drawing for the rebuilt cars also applicable to the plain X29 cars re-equipped with AB?
3) Is there any logic to finding the transversely mounted reservoir? They seem to be found only on the last production (Dreadnaught ends) cars as if the two-chamber reservoir replaced the original single style in the same location. Was this consistent throughout the group?
Obviously, photos are most helpful to accurate modeling but......
4) If we want to model a certain car number from a particular date but have no photo, can we at least be relatively certain that a given brake arrangement applies to that car?
5) Elden notes that Branchline (now Atlas) car bodies are applicable for the three body/door sizes for the X29B and two styles of X29D. Can those Branch/Atlas part numbers be made known?
Thank you Elden and thank all in advance for contributions responsive to the questions above.
Regards from Grove City, Penna. where it is cold and raining----Mike Schleigh
On Monday, April 12, 2021, 01:29:34 PM EDT, Gatwood, Elden J SAD <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote:
Here’s the “cheat sheet” for what you need on your X29B or X29D: