UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
Friends,
This question may get replies to “buy the book” but I will ask it anyway. I model 1950 and have purchased several Rapido X-3 models with K brakes and “30s era” stenciling. They should be appropriate for my layout. As I have read on this list, some of the changes to AB brakes occurred in the 40s, so I also purchased two undecorated kits with AB bakes and UTLX decals from NSC.
My question is, what changes to the stenciling should I make to the undecorated kits that I am modeling as if they were upgraded to AB brakes in the 40s? Is the stenciling the same?
Any insights or photos are appreciated. Thank you for your support.
Bruce D. Griffin
Ashland, MD
https://bomodeling.com/blog/
As I understand the tank car lettering, the weigh date stencils did not change as regularly as other freight cars. What changed more frequently were the journal repack stencils and the safety valve test dates. Those are smaller lettering and not as easily noticed on your layout, especially with a few layers of weathering.
I’m still learning about tank cars, to keep that in mind with my comments. I welcome clarification.
Eric Hansmann
Philadelphia, Penna.
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 1:17 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
Friends,
This question may get replies to “buy the book” but I will ask it anyway. I model 1950 and have purchased several Rapido X-3 models with K brakes and “30s era” stenciling. They should be appropriate for my layout. As I have read on this list, some of the changes to AB brakes occurred in the 40s, so I also purchased two undecorated kits with AB bakes and UTLX decals from NSC.
My question is, what changes to the stenciling should I make to the undecorated kits that I am modeling as if they were upgraded to AB brakes in the 40s? Is the stenciling the same?
Any insights or photos are appreciated. Thank you for your support.
Bruce D. Griffin
Ashland, MD
https://bomodeling.com/blog/
I would think that conversion from K to AB brakes would sufficiently affect light weight to necessitate a tank car to be reweighed. I assume that AB brakes were heavier than K but if I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me.
____________
Chris Barkan
Champaign, IL
Hi Bruce,
Of course, we would love it if you bought the book, but …
The main lettering on UTLX X-3 tank cars did not vary very much, over the years. Between when built in 1920 and the 50’s the major change was moving the position of the words Union Tank Car Company over the reporting marks, which began in the later 1920’s.
The main push to convert from K to AB brakes took place following WWII and leading up to the 1953 deadline. So, for 1950, there still would be K brake versions around.
FWIW, I worked with Ryan at NSC to improve the former Speedwitch UTLX decal set and has good numbers and data for not only X-3’s but other types, as well.
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Bruce Griffin
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 12:17 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
Friends,
This question may get replies to “buy the book” but I will ask it anyway. I model 1950 and have purchased several Rapido X-3 models with K brakes and “30s era” stenciling. They should be appropriate for my layout. As I have read on this list, some of the changes to AB brakes occurred in the 40s, so I also purchased two undecorated kits with AB bakes and UTLX decals from NSC.
My question is, what changes to the stenciling should I make to the undecorated kits that I am modeling as if they were upgraded to AB brakes in the 40s? Is the stenciling the same?
Any insights or photos are appreciated. Thank you for your support.
Bruce D. Griffin
Ashland, MD
https://bomodeling.com/blog/
Chris,
I have struggled to understand this whole issue with respect to reweighing with the conversion to AB brakes. There are many examples of photos of UTLX tank cars with AB brakes retaining their New dates including Type X’s as well as X-3’s. In my collection, at least, there are far fewer with reweigh dates that correspond to the brake conversion.
Here is an example of a car from the series Rapido has modeled which has had the AB conversion and a 1951 repack date
Nevertheless, some cars did get a reweigh date, including this one from the same number series.
So, go figure….
It occurs to me that with the large number of K to AB brake conversions that UTLX was doing post WWII, they may have gotten some sort of dispensation to avoid reweighing of all the cars.
Obviously, I wish I had a more definitive answer. Has anyone seen the comparative weights of the AB versus K components? The two cantilever brackets for the reservoir were certainly additive, but the rest of the components may not have been that different in weight?
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Chris Barkan
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 9:38 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
According to Richard Hendrickson, and several others, writing sometime in the past (I do not know exactly when) http://www.hosam.com/aar/reweigh.html , per AAR Interchange Rule 11 tank cars, unlike most other car types, were not required to be reweighed at regular intervals but only under specific circumstances (eg. a change in weight of 300 lbs or more by alterations or repairs). This is because tank car weights are generally more stable than other freight car types. Consider that not much changes on them, unlike some other car types subject to various in-service modifications, accumulations of "stuff", or loss of material.
I would think that conversion from K to AB brakes would sufficiently affect light weight to necessitate a tank car to be reweighed. I assume that AB brakes were heavier than K but if I am incorrect in this assumption, please correct me.
____________
Chris Barkan
Champaign, IL
My take is that Rule 30 is really rather ambiguous when it comes to tank cars. Most cars needed to be re-stenciled if the light weight changed by more than 300 lbs, but this trigger was 500 lbs for reefers. [ I am not sure why this distinction was made; did reefers tend to haul commodities for which the rates charged were not based on weight? Or was it just practical in that so much ice/water flowed in and out of wood reefers such that the weight was intrinsically more variable?]
On tank cars, Rule 30 is really rather silent (or at least vague). For example, should the 300 or the 500 lb trigger be used? Rule 30 does not say. In fact, this the only really relevant paragraph in the 1929 rule:
What do the two ("except tank cars") caveats actually mean? Well, there was no prescribed reweigh interval for tanks cars, so the first one just seems to reaffirm that. The second one seems to apply to the 300 vs 500 lb trigger question, but it's not clear how. -- if at all.
Other elements of Rule 30 included that cars needed to be reweighed after "material" repair or refitting. It's less clear whether or not the car actually had to be re-stenciled if the resulting weight change was minimal. With all other freight cars requiring a reweigh at least very 36 months (remember these are the 1929 rules), it would make sense to take advantage of the fact that the car was in the shop anyway and go ahead and update the date and location of the reweigh (but not the LT WT and LD LMT values). But with a tank car, why bother? Without a prescribed reweigh interval, there was no incentive to update the LT WT stencils.
Last, the car marking standards required that tank cars have a Capacity stencil, and a Light Weight stencil (but not the Load Limit stencil seen on other types of cars). But operationally, were these stencils actually important? I read somewhere, probably in an anecdotal source, that the reason the tank cars were reweighed so infrequently is that the rates charged were based on the volume, not the weight, of the commodity.
Across all my photos of tank cars, not just UTLX, I see plenty of examples of cars with updated light weights. And as Steve notes, many without, despite obvious evidence of new equipment (AB brakes, trucks, etc.). I have a couple of examples where the photo shows a newly shopped car with a new light weight stencil, and one can speculate as to what triggered the reweigh/re-stencil. But most of the time it's a mystery to me why a particular car is sporting a new Light Weight stencil.
I don't know if this helps. If anybody has additional insights, particular for >1940, please share.
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA
--
Ken Adams
Covid Variants may come and go but I choose to still live mostly in splendid Shelter In Place solitude
Location: About half way up Walnut Creek
Owner PlasticFreightCarBuilders@groups.io
Ken Adams wrote:Yes and no. Yes, in that the marked gallonage on tank cars was the “shell-full” quantity, which could be seen visually through the many opening when the liquid just filled the horizontal part of the tank. But no, in that if you look in a tariff (the one I have is for 1975, so not certain this was always true), the tariff quantities are on the basis of a stated weight per gallon. Obviously you just multiply that factor times the gallons to get weight. As an example, xylene was listed as 6.6 pounds per gallon. But it’s true that the light weight of the car wasn’t a factor, which is why tank cars didn’t get reweighed.
I may be absolutely wrong, but weren't the US freight tariffs for transportation of liquids by tank car in US gallons rather than weight?
I have a prototype waybill from Andy Laurent’s collection, that is for LPG (propane), and the cargo line is 30701 gallons, but the calculation of the rate, in columns to the right, is in pounds.
Tony Thompson
tony@...
I should have added that this was convenient for loading; fill the car shell-full and your cargo amount is lettered on the end of the car. THAT number was therefore the important one, not the light weight.
Yes and no. Yes, in that the marked gallonage on tank cars was the “shell-full” quantity, which could be seen visually through the many opening when the liquid just filled the horizontal part of the tank.
Of course with pressurized or poisonous cargos you couldn’t do this, so such a cargo was metered.
Tony
Consequently, the tariff books were not only useful, but needed with their listing of capacity car by car.
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tony Thompson
Sent: Saturday, March 11, 2023 2:48 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
I wrote:
I should have added that this was convenient for loading; fill the car shell-full and your cargo amount is lettered on the end of the car. THAT number was therefore the important one, not the light weight.
Yes and no. Yes, in that the marked gallonage on tank cars was the “shell-full” quantity, which could be seen visually through the many opening when the liquid just filled the horizontal part of the tank.
Of course with pressurized or poisonous cargos you couldn’t do this, so such a cargo was metered.
Tony
If that seems esoteric, remember there were many MCB Class II tank cars with domes significantly below the 2% (of total car volume) minimum prescribed in the 1917 shift to Class III cars. Depending on the volatility of the commodity, and the temperature at loading, these cars often could not be filled shell-full -- inadequate head-space. This also occurred, albeit less commonly, with Class III cars, especially if they had "smallish" domes in the ~2 to 2.5% range
--
Dave Parker
Swall Meadows, CA
Are you saying that the dome hatch was opened up during loading of tank cars? I
would not expect that so 'measuring the distance to the top of the load' would not
(could not) have been done. I would expect that they measured the product
during the pumping/transfer into the car and used that. If they weren't doing it
this way ... just what were all those "fittings" on top of the car? I guess that
after unhooking the transfer hose you could dip thru the pipe (fitting) - but I've
never seen a single picture of a guy on top of a tank car using a dipstick ...
- Jim in the PNW
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 9:39 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
| CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn.
|
Are you saying that the dome hatch was opened up during loading of tank cars? I
would not expect that so 'measuring the distance to the top of the load' would not
(could not) have been done. I would expect that they measured the product
during the pumping/transfer into the car and used that. If they weren't doing it
this way ... just what were all those "fittings" on top of the car? I guess that
after unhooking the transfer hose you could dip thru the pipe (fitting) - but I've
never seen a single picture of a guy on top of a tank car using a dipstick ...
- Jim in the PNW
Bruce has it nailed. Here’s an example from the Louisiana Digital Collection showing how a line of cars were being loaded through the hatch.
Steve Hile
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 10:05 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
Jim,
When I look at any type 103/III tank car (general service) what I see on the dome is the hatch and one or two safety valves (depending on capacity). So where, exactly, other than opening the hatch, would a tank car be loaded? Note that unloading was accomplished through a fixture at the bottom of the tank, that was opened by a valve handle inside the dome.
Note that pressurized cars were a different cup of tea, and that transfer fixtures were inside the bonnet.
Regards,
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> on behalf of Jim Betz <jimbetz@...>
Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2023 9:39 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Subject: [EXT] Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
CAUTION: Email Originated Outside of Auburn. |
All,
Are you saying that the dome hatch was opened up during loading of tank cars? I
would not expect that so 'measuring the distance to the top of the load' would not
(could not) have been done. I would expect that they measured the product
during the pumping/transfer into the car and used that. If they weren't doing it
this way ... just what were all those "fittings" on top of the car? I guess that
after unhooking the transfer hose you could dip thru the pipe (fitting) - but I've
never seen a single picture of a guy on top of a tank car using a dipstick ...
- Jim in the PNW
On Mar 13, 2023, at 1:08 PM, Tony Thompson <tony@...> wrote:
This discussion about tank cars was timely, as I had been working on a blog post on essentially the same topic. I posted it today, and if you’re interested, here’s a link.
Thanks, Tony,
Of course, I am always intrigued by UTLX references, in this case, the waybill consigning gasoline in 1962 in UTLX 22877. This would have been an 8000 gallon X-3 car in the series 22800-22974, built in 1927 by General American for UTLX. It is the same length as the Rapido car, but with a thinner tank. Maybe, if we wish hard enough, and buy lots of the first batch of X-3’s, Rapido could do the 8000 gallon tank on the same basic underframe. This series also includes the car picture that many of us have seen of a white or silver car with Skellysolve slogan lettering.
Steve Hile
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:09 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
This discussion about tank cars was timely, as I had been working on a blog post on essentially the same topic. I posted it today, and if you’re interested, here’s a link.
Steve, was this one (UTLX 22747) identical to the cars built by GA in 1927, or was
this one also built by General American ?
On 3/13/2023 9:13 PM, Steve and Barb Hile wrote:
Thanks, Tony,
Of course, I am always intrigued by UTLX references, in this case, the waybill consigning gasoline in 1962 in UTLX 22877. This would have been an 8000 gallon X-3 car in the series 22800-22974, built in 1927 by General American for UTLX. It is the same length as the Rapido car, but with a thinner tank. Maybe, if we wish hard enough, and buy lots of the first batch of X-3’s, Rapido could do the 8000 gallon tank on the same basic underframe. This series also includes the car picture that many of us have seen of a white or silver car with Skellysolve slogan lettering.
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tony Thompson
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:09 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
This discussion about tank cars was timely, as I had been working on a blog post on essentially the same topic. I posted it today, and if you’re interested, here’s a link.
Tony Thompson
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts
While it was not unknown for UTLX to renumber cars to keep like equipment together, UTLX 22747 most likely would be identical to 22877, except that it would have been built by ACF in 1927. UTLX used multiple builders, but designed its own cars.
Steve Hile
Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2023 6:26 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
Steve, was this one (UTLX 22747) identical to the cars built by GA in 1927, or was
this one also built by General American ?
On 3/13/2023 9:13 PM, Steve and Barb Hile wrote:
Thanks, Tony,
Of course, I am always intrigued by UTLX references, in this case, the waybill consigning gasoline in 1962 in UTLX 22877. This would have been an 8000 gallon X-3 car in the series 22800-22974, built in 1927 by General American for UTLX. It is the same length as the Rapido car, but with a thinner tank. Maybe, if we wish hard enough, and buy lots of the first batch of X-3’s, Rapido could do the 8000 gallon tank on the same basic underframe. This series also includes the car picture that many of us have seen of a white or silver car with Skellysolve slogan lettering.
Steve Hile
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Tony Thompson
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2023 12:09 PM
To: main@realstmfc.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] UTLX X-3 Stenciling.
This discussion about tank cars was timely, as I had been working on a blog post on essentially the same topic. I posted it today, and if you’re interested, here’s a link.
Tony Thompson
--
Tim O'Connor
Sterling, Massachusetts