Topics

Tichy tank car

D. Scott Chatfield
 

I know much has been written about this so-called USRA tank car, but I have a question.  What was the gallonage of said USRA design?

The reason I ask is I am decaling said Tichy tank car to represent a Milwaukee Road water car, which apparently was built by ACF in 1923 (if I read the fuzzy scan right).  It is a 10,000 gallon ARA III with a barrel made from four longitudinal courses.  Which basically matches the Tichy car.  But when I started putting decals on it I noticed they don't quite fall where they should.  So yes, there are several variables here, but when I measured the actual model I found its body has a volume of about 9000 to 9200 gallons.  Can't say I've ever laid eyes on a tank car that size.

So is the Tichy tank about 10% undersized?  Or is it correct for the plans for the never-built USRA tank, which I always thought was a 10,000 gallon tank.

Oh, while said Milwaukee Road water car is a post-1960 paint job, it will occasionally be switched by an NW2....

Scott Chatfield

Andy Carlson
 

I have found that the various wheel bases of tank cars make a huge difference in lettering cars. I remember once thinking that UTLX and ACF tank bodies were so close, they could be a start of something kit bashed. B ut those two builders had noticably different wheel bases. Because the tank body bands are located at the bolster area, wheel base will change the amount of room between the head cap and these bands, making proportions go astray.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019, 2:16:15 PM PDT, D. Scott Chatfield <blindog@...> wrote:


I know much has been written about this so-called USRA tank car, but I have a question.  What was the gallonage of said USRA design?

The reason I ask is I am decaling said Tichy tank car to represent a Milwaukee Road water car, which apparently was built by ACF in 1923 (if I read the fuzzy scan right).  It is a 10,000 gallon ARA III with a barrel made from four longitudinal courses.  Which basically matches the Tichy car.  But when I started putting decals on it I noticed they don't quite fall where they should.  So yes, there are several variables here, but when I measured the actual model I found its body has a volume of about 9000 to 9200 gallons.  Can't say I've ever laid eyes on a tank car that size.

So is the Tichy tank about 10% undersized?  Or is it correct for the plans for the never-built USRA tank, which I always thought was a 10,000 gallon tank.

Oh, while said Milwaukee Road water car is a post-1960 paint job, it will occasionally be switched by an NW2....

Scott Chatfield
_._,_._,_

David
 

ACF's tanks before the Type 27 tended to be shorter lengthwise for their nominal gallonage?? (and therefore larger in diameter) than most of the other tank car builders. What you want for that Milwaukee car is?? the old Proto 2000 ACF Type 21 tank.

David Thompson

bn2204
 

Scott

It's my understanding that the Tichy model represents a USRA design from WWI that was never built here in the US. However, this design was built in Canada during WWII and the Canadian cars survived into the early 1980's. If memory serves me well, the manway is 54" in dia., as where the initial Tichy model was offered with a 60" manway. (Tichy now offers the 54" manway.) The centersill and brake appliances are slightly different, and there's been discussion about using  the frame from an 8000 gal Intermountain to more accurately model the frame. But as is, the tank itself is correct. There were several Canadian owners, but CGTX and CN were the big owners of the cars. In fact, I need several of these cars myself. The model best matches CGT'X 1600-1799 (see link)

http://www.nakina.net/pages/cgtx/cgtx001001.html

Darrall Swift - Lagrange, Ohio
Modeling the BN/MILW in North Central Montana,  Great Falls to Shelby,  Circa: August-September 1979

Bruce Smith
 

WWII built USG-A cars built by AC&F were also similar, but as with the Canadian cars, which were built by CC&F, the under frame was different so the Tichy kit is not completely correct. Note that these cars were a "throw back" in that they were class II tank cars that were limited in the cargos that could be carried when compared to the standard class 3 (103) cars of the time.


Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of bn2204 via Groups.Io <doswift@...>
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 8:07 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car
 
Scott

It's my understanding that the Tichy model represents a USRA design from WWI that was never built here in the US. However, this design was built in Canada during WWII and the Canadian cars survived into the early 1980's. If memory serves me well, the manway is 54" in dia., as where the initial Tichy model was offered with a 60" manway. (Tichy now offers the 54" manway.) The centersill and brake appliances are slightly different, and there's been discussion about using  the frame from an 8000 gal Intermountain to more accurately model the frame. But as is, the tank itself is correct. There were several Canadian owners, but CGTX and CN were the big owners of the cars. In fact, I need several of these cars myself.

http://www.nakina.net/pages/cgtx/cgtx001001.html
www.nakina.net
CGTX 1001 series: CGTX's 1000 series consisted of a mixture of 10,000 and 12,000 gallon tank cars, and were a mixture of new and used cars acquired from 1932 to 1952.



Darrall Swift - Lagrange, Ohio
Modeling the BN/MILW in North Central Montana,  Great Falls to Shelby,  Circa: August-September 1979

Kemal Mumcu
 

The Canadian cars indeed had a 54" dome, although I believe the Tichy offerings are either 52" or 60". The frames on the CGTX cars were longer than standard and purchasing an extra frame from Tichy and splicing 2 together could give you the longer frame. There are drawings of these cars available on the CP Tracks document library, available for those who sign up for a user name and password.

I haven't built any yet but I'd like to eventually.

Colin Meikle

Aley, Jeff A
 

Hi Scott,

 

               I don’t think anybody has actually answered your question about the dimensions of the model tank.  What dimensions did you measure, and how did you convert that to gallonage?

 

Regards,

 

-Jeff

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of D. Scott Chatfield
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:15 PM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car

 

I know much has been written about this so-called USRA tank car, but I have a question.  What was the gallonage of said USRA design?

 

The reason I ask is I am decaling said Tichy tank car to represent a Milwaukee Road water car, which apparently was built by ACF in 1923 (if I read the fuzzy scan right).  It is a 10,000 gallon ARA III with a barrel made from four longitudinal courses.  Which basically matches the Tichy car.  But when I started putting decals on it I noticed they don't quite fall where they should.  So yes, there are several variables here, but when I measured the actual model I found its body has a volume of about 9000 to 9200 gallons.  Can't say I've ever laid eyes on a tank car that size.

 

So is the Tichy tank about 10% undersized?  Or is it correct for the plans for the never-built USRA tank, which I always thought was a 10,000 gallon tank.

 

Oh, while said Milwaukee Road water car is a post-1960 paint job, it will occasionally be switched by an NW2....

 

Scott Chatfield

Edward
 

Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.
Calculate the cubic footage of the tank interior as a cylinder. Do not include dome capacity.

100 gallons occupies13.36 cubic feet, with a water weight of 213.76 lbs. 
(1 gallon is 1.336 cubic feet. A gallon of water has 16 pints weighing a pound each, if you are seeking weight).

Divide the total volume of the tank by 13.36 to get the gallonage in 100's.
Round this down to the nearest gross thousands to find a nominal gallon capacity.
These are often stated as 5,000, 6,000, 8,000,10,000 12,000 etc. but could vary by being slightly larger as well.

For water weight capacity in pounds of each nominal size tank, multiply by 16.
I think water weight for fluid loads was generally used in weight capacity calculations.
These determined journal / bearing  sizes for the trucks used under a tank car. 

Other fluids may vary by weight, being lighter or heavier from their chemical composition.
A gallon of gasoline weighs less than a gallon of water, for example.
A gallon of sulfuric acid is heavier.

Ed Bommer 

D. Scott Chatfield
 

To measure the Tichy tank's volume I took this thingie called a "scale ruler" and measured the model.  Using the HO scale side, of course.  Since a tank car is not a simple cylinder, a little estimation is in order.  And since we need inside diameter, you have to subtract a bit from the measured outside diameter, but not much.

So I used an ID of 84" and a length of 32'6".  Thus the math is:
42 x 42 x 3.1415 x 32.5 x 12 = volume in cubic inches, divided by 231 to get volume in gallons.

Please note the volume of the dome in general service tanks was supposed to 2% of the tank's volume, and that volume was to be the part of the dome above top dead center of the tank barrel.  So the useable volume of the tank barrel (the volume stenciled on the tank end) should include that part of the dome below top dead center of the tank.  I didn't feel like doing that math.....


Scott Chatfield

Richard Townsend
 

In Tony Thompson's blog he reported the Tichy tank car's volume to be 9840 gallons. http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/10/naperville-tank-car-handout-part-2.html

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Aley, Jeff A <Jeff.A.Aley@...>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>; RealSTMFC@groups.io <RealSTMFC@groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 10:38 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car

Hi Scott,
 
               I don’t think anybody has actually answered your question about the dimensions of the model tank.  What dimensions did you measure, and how did you convert that to gallonage?
 
Regards,
 
-Jeff
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of D. Scott Chatfield
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:15 PM
To: RealSTMFC@groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car
 
I know much has been written about this so-called USRA tank car, but I have a question.  What was the gallonage of said USRA design?
 
The reason I ask is I am decaling said Tichy tank car to represent a Milwaukee Road water car, which apparently was built by ACF in 1923 (if I read the fuzzy scan right).  It is a 10,000 gallon ARA III with a barrel made from four longitudinal courses.  Which basically matches the Tichy car.  But when I started putting decals on it I noticed they don't quite fall where they should.  So yes, there are several variables here, but when I measured the actual model I found its body has a volume of about 9000 to 9200 gallons.  Can't say I've ever laid eyes on a tank car that size.
 
So is the Tichy tank about 10% undersized?  Or is it correct for the plans for the never-built USRA tank, which I always thought was a 10,000 gallon tank.
 
Oh, while said Milwaukee Road water car is a post-1960 paint job, it will occasionally be switched by an NW2....
 
Scott Chatfield

Tony Thompson
 

Ed Bommer wrote:

Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.

     Thee are complications with the domed heads and other issues. I explored ALL of that and came up with an excellent approximation to account for the details. It's at this link if you're interested:


And as Richard Townsend observed, I calculated way back in 2012 that the Tichy tank volume is 9840 gallons.
     BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.

Tony Thompson
Berkeley, CA


Douglas Harding
 

Ed you need to adjust your math. There are 8 pints in a gallon at 1 lb per pint. There are 16 cups in a gallon at ½ lb per cup. Meaning a gallon of water weighs 8 lbs. Thus a 100 gallons would weigh 800lbs.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Edward
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 1:18 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Tichy tank car

 

Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.
Calculate the cubic footage of the tank interior as a cylinder. Do not include dome capacity.

100 gallons occupies13.36 cubic feet, with a water weight of 213.76 lbs. 
(1 gallon is 1.336 cubic feet. A gallon of water has 16 pints weighing a pound each, if you are seeking weight).

Divide the total volume of the tank by 13.36 to get the gallonage in 100's.
Round this down to the nearest gross thousands to find a nominal gallon capacity.
These are often stated as 5,000, 6,000, 8,000,10,000 12,000 etc. but could vary by being slightly larger as well.

For water weight capacity in pounds of each nominal size tank, multiply by 16.
I think water weight for fluid loads was generally used in weight capacity calculations.
These determined journal / bearing  sizes for the trucks used under a tank car. 

Other fluids may vary by weight, being lighter or heavier from their chemical composition.
A gallon of gasoline weighs less than a gallon of water, for example.
A gallon of sulfuric acid is heavier.

Ed Bommer 

Edward
 

Yep, Doug!
You got me there. I was going too fast in my post. 
Many thanks for the correction.
Ed Bommer 

rdgbuff56
 

Having been a volunteer firefighter for 45 years,  a gallon of water always weighed 8.34 pounds not 16.

Francis A. Pehowic,  Jr. 
Sunbury,  Pa.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2019, 6:17:45 PM UTC, Edward <edb8391@...> wrote:


Jeff's question can be answered from knowing the inside dimensions of any tank - length and diameter in this case.
Those dimensions would be an few inches LESS than the outside measurements.
Calculate the cubic footage of the tank interior as a cylinder. Do not include dome capacity.

100 gallons occupies13.36 cubic feet, with a water weight of 213.76 lbs. 
(1 gallon is 1.336 cubic feet. A gallon of water has 16 pints weighing a pound each, if you are seeking weight).

Divide the total volume of the tank by 13.36 to get the gallonage in 100's.
Round this down to the nearest gross thousands to find a nominal gallon capacity.
These are often stated as 5,000, 6,000, 8,000,10,000 12,000 etc. but could vary by being slightly larger as well.

For water weight capacity in pounds of each nominal size tank, multiply by 16.
I think water weight for fluid loads was generally used in weight capacity calculations.
These determined journal / bearing  sizes for the trucks used under a tank car. 

Other fluids may vary by weight, being lighter or heavier from their chemical composition.
A gallon of gasoline weighs less than a gallon of water, for example.
A gallon of sulfuric acid is heavier.

Ed Bommer 

Dave Parker
 

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
 BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.
Just to clarify, the 2% requirement dates only to the creation of, and mandatory construction to, the Class III  and IV standards of May, 1917.  Many, perhaps the majority, of Class II cars had domes noticeably smaller than this minimum percentage, and many were used in interchange for decades thereafter.

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity.  Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  Texaco obviously preferred to simplify things, which is why their ACF Type 21 10 kgal cars had 420-gal domes (versus the "standard" ACF build of 210 gallons).

Dave Parker  
Riverside, CA

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity. 

     This seems an odd story. The MCB report which was the basis for the 2 percent rule had accepted input from many shippers of all kinds, to create a "safe" volume. Perhaps Texaco wasn't shipping high-expansion products before 1917.

Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  

      The widely-used convention was to fill a car "shell full," which meant, just to the very top of the horizontal cylindrical part, easily seen through the manway during filling. The gallonage stenciled on the end of the tank reflected filling to that level.

Tony Thompson



Dave Parker
 

Sorry Tony, this is simply not true.  If you dig back into the ARA tank car specs from ca. 1920, you can find the outage tables and chart that gives the needed expansion volume for a given commodity.  With a high enough vapor pressure, and a high enough loading temperature, the required head space could easily reach 3+%, and the fix was to fill the car to less than shell- full.   A specific table for each car design told the shipper how many inches short of full-shell to fill the car for a given % expansion volume.  A simple dip stick presumably facilitated the measurement.  Examples of such tables can be found in the Standard Tank (Car) Companies books "All About Tank Cars" from 1919 and 1921.  The widely circulated 1952 UTLX summary of all of their cars also contains reference to the correct Outage Table Number for each car design and size.

As I tried to explain, Texaco apparently skirted this inconvenience by ordering Class III and IV cars with domes in excess of 3%, and even 4%, of the tank volume.  This makes modeling TCX cars something of challenge if your goal is prototypic accuracy.  None of the models really look right next to the prototypes.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA

Tony Thompson
 

Dave Parker wrote:

Sorry Tony, this is simply not true. 

Not clear which part of my comments you state isn't true. The gallonage on a tank car end is indeed the shell-full gallons. And many commodities were loaded shell-full. I spoke at length at an NMRA convention with a guy who had worked at Procter and Gamble, and that's  what he said.
       I don't dispute the outage tables. No doubt there were commodities for which the 2 percent might not be enough.
       The 1915 report by MCB (I think that's the year) was summarized in Railway Age, and it describes the 2 percent volume issue at length. It was certainly the intent to cover a wide range of commodities, but of course the world of petrochemicals and other products has changed a great deal since then. And perhaps the 2 percent was a compromise to cover most products, and use outage tables for the rest.

Tony Thompson



Paul Doggett
 

Ed 

There’s 8 pints in a gallon.
Paul Doggett 
England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 


On 15 Aug 2019, at 02:23, Dave Parker via Groups.Io <spottab@...> wrote:

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:36 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:
 BTW, in response to Scott Chatfield's comment about dome volume, it was required to be a MINIMUM of 2 percent of the tank volume. Car buyers could choose to have larger domes if they wished.
Just to clarify, the 2% requirement dates only to the creation of, and mandatory construction to, the Class III  and IV standards of May, 1917.  Many, perhaps the majority, of Class II cars had domes noticeably smaller than this minimum percentage, and many were used in interchange for decades thereafter.

And indeed some car buyers (Texcao most notably) insisted on larger, sometimes much larger, domes.  The reason was that depending on the commodity, and the loading temperature, 2% was an insufficient expansion volume, and extra headspace had to be provided by not filling the tank to 100% of capacity.  Each car design had an outage table to allow shippers to "conveniently"  determine the correct fill level.  Texaco obviously preferred to simplify things, which is why their ACF Type 21 10 kgal cars had 420-gal domes (versus the "standard" ACF build of 210 gallons).

Dave Parker  
Riverside, CA

Dave Parker
 

Tony:

First, the outage chart and tables were likely needed in a significant number of cases.  The ICC regs on this, which date to 1918 at least, pertained to all commodities classified as inflammables. The 1923 revisions, which appear to be unchanged in the 1938 and 1949 updates (published in the CFR), include several common commodities.  For example, both gasoline and naptha, when loaded at temperatures up to 65 F, required expansion volumes of 2.4 to 2.8%.  At 75 F and above, the 2% minimum dome size would have been adequate.  When loaded at 55 F, both ethanol and toluene would have required a ~2.8% expansion volume, while methanol and benzene would have needed about 3.2%.  Commodities not classified as inflammable, including kerosene, diesel, fuel oil, etc., could all be carried with a 2% expansion space.

Second, tank cars actually built to the 2% minimum may have been in the minority.  Using the Sinclair fleet of ca 1930 as an example, the GATC 1917 design cars had dome volumes of 2.5% (8000 gal) or 2.3% (10,000gal).  The radial-course Penn Tank Car builds (8000 gal) had 3.2% domes.  The notable exception seems to have been the 10,000-gal ACF Type 21s with their minimalist 210-gal domes, apparently the most common configuration for these cars.  In contrast, the 8000-gal Type 21s most commonly sported 254-gal domes, and the P2000/Walthers Proto models of the Type 21s reflect these norms.

Last, starting some time in the early 1920s (perhaps 1923), the dome volumes of cars fitted with "side dome safety valves" were downgraded for all inflammable commodities.  For example, Sinclair had 6000-gal ACF cars built in in 1918 to Class III the standard but with side-mounted valves.  The 145-gal dome volume was downsized to only 95 gallons (~1.5%) for use with inflammables, so the outage table would have been a necessity for this combination of commodity and car.   There are a number of other examples of cars so footnoted scattered throughout the 1936 and 1955 tariff books.

Dave Parker
Riverside, CA