Topics

Photo: Mostly Gondolas (Circa 1940s)


Bob Chaparro
 

Photo: Mostly Gondolas (Circa 1940s)

A photo from the University of Texas Libraries:

https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/sites/library.uta.edu.digitalgallery/files/20080000-20089999/20089977.jpg

Click on the photo to enlarge it.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


David
 

Whose reefer conversion is behind the MP gon?

David Thompson


Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
 


Hi David,
 
I think that is a RDG reefer. These were not conversions, they were purpose-built reefers, built in 1923 for the Philadelphia & Reading. Certainly quite unusual design as reefers go!
 
Claus Schlund
 

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, February 15, 2021 6:17 PM
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Mostly Gondolas (Circa 1940s)

Whose reefer conversion is behind the MP gon?

David Thompson







Philip Dove
 

Is that one of the Mopac panelled gondolas series 22000 23774 in the centre of the photo. Did these cars carry a special traffic to warrant being built with panels that increase capacity by only about 200 cubic feet or less?

Virus-free. www.avast.com


On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 23:10, Bob Chaparro via groups.io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote:

Photo: Mostly Gondolas (Circa 1940s)

A photo from the University of Texas Libraries:

https://library.uta.edu/digitalgallery/sites/library.uta.edu.digitalgallery/files/20080000-20089999/20089977.jpg

Click on the photo to enlarge it.

Bob Chaparro

Hemet, CA


Jerry Michels
 

I am pretty sure the panel-sided MoPac gondolas carried sand a lot of the time, so 200 cubic feet of a dense material must have been worth it. The railroad had a lot of them so they must have seen a value in the increased capacity. Right off I am not sure, but how did the volume increase on twin hopper increase over the normal plain side versions? Jerry Michels


Benjamin Hom
 

Jerry Michels asked: 
"...how did the volume increase on twin hopper increase over the normal plain side versions?"

Reported volume for the rebuilds varied depending on the vendor supplying the sides, but one example for the USRA twin:

Original Car: 1880 cu ft
NYCS Lots 639-H, 640-H, 641-H, 645-H, 651-H, 655-H (1,877 cars): 1980 cu ft
Increase in cubic capability: 100 cu ft, 5.3%


Ben Hom


Mont Switzer
 

..........and the sides most likely were shot and needed replacement anyway. However, the stamped side panels obviously would cost more. Good way to make an older car worth hanging onto.

Mont Switzer
________________________________________
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] on behalf of Benjamin Hom [b.hom@att.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:52 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Photo: Mostly Gondolas (Circa 1940s)

Jerry Michels asked:
"...how did the volume increase on twin hopper increase over the normal plain side versions?"

Reported volume for the rebuilds varied depending on the vendor supplying the sides, but one example for the USRA twin:

Original Car: 1880 cu ft
NYCS Lots 639-H, 640-H, 641-H, 645-H, 651-H, 655-H (1,877 cars): 1980 cu ft
Increase in cubic capability: 100 cu ft, 5.3%


Ben Hom


Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 06:46 AM, Mont Switzer wrote:
.........and the sides most likely were shot and needed replacement anyway. However, the stamped side panels obviously would cost more.
Unless... The stamped side panels also included the stakes, saving the fabrication of separate parts. I haven't had any occasion to research replacement gondola sides, but as far as hopper sides are concerned, very few cars used separate framing as modeled on the Tichy car. Early on Union Metal Products revised their product to include "integral stakes", each edge of the sheet being flanged outward to form half a stake, which were welded together after the sheets were riveted to the side sills.

Dennis Storzek