Interesting StLNA Find...
Posted 06 January 2006 - 05:29 AM
Ya'll have to forgive me for not posting a photo of my actual toy. I've been having trouble getting photos from the digital camera to the computer....so photos are a problem right now. The photo at this link is about as close as I can give for what my car looks like; though mine only has the two large front windows and not the "inspection window" that is under one of the headlights. Here are some details about this model car. It is powered by a 2 cylinder Onan 20Hp motor with a displacement of 50 CUI (500 CC motor!). There is a 2 speed transmission with forward & "retreat" (HI and Low both directions) bolted to the motor. There are two seats in the car, but three folks can ride in the car provided someone doesn't mind riding the "tunnel" that runs the lenght of the car covering the motor, transmission, gas tank, etc. Motorcar production stop about 1984-1985; my car was built Feburuary 1982. The company that built the cars in the photo and mine (Farimont of Fairmont, MN) still builds the hi-rail equipment to be used under trucks and SUV. If anyone has more questions...fire away; though PM might be a better idea instead of tiying up the VSC forum talking about a motorcar.
Posted 06 January 2006 - 06:28 AM
* When did such motorcars begin to be produced?
* What would "typically" be found on a US railroad during the world war 2 years? (i.e. a Fairmont, or an old pump velociped?)
Posted 06 January 2006 - 07:51 AM
Posted 06 January 2006 - 08:42 AM
Posted 06 January 2006 - 11:49 AM
If your talking about the MT19 series...there is two answer here. A quick "motorcar 101" course here. When Fairmont started producing power motorcars (back in the mid to late 1930s) there was five basic car sizs/designs; and they are as follows:
M9 - Single man car. Usually used by signal mainteers.
M19 - Two man car, usually superident's car.
M14 - Two man car, slightly longer frame than the M19..usually crew car.
"S" series - Four man car, again slightly longer car, this time longer than the M14.
"A" series - 4+ man car, Very powerful motors (flat head Fords, Hercules, etc), able to pull several cars at one time. Only series with a four speed transmission.
The M14 and the Gang cars do not have a suspenion system...thus you feel EVERY joint. The M9 and M19 have a spring suspenion that helps lessen the impact of the jointed rail. The "M" and "S" series cars had a single cylinder motor that would run eithe clockwise (CW) or counter-clockwise (CCW)...depending on how the spark was set. These motors were all manual, you had to set the spark, fuel ratio throttle; and they burned mixed fuel (2 cycle motor). They would produce 5-8 Hp, again depending on the advance of the spark. You started one of these motors just like an old Model T....Armstrong starter. The "transmission" was a thick rubber/nylon belt that you had to adjust the tention on to first start the car rolling, then to pull the load that you might have in tow. All that clear as mud?
About 1966 or so Fairmont started to use more powerful motors and transmissions in the "M" series cars, thus the models change to "MT". The "S" series was phased out, with nothing really taking it's place. The belts were gone, along with the motors that were able to run CW and CCW. In there place this is what Fairmont had:
Both the MT19 & MT14 used the Onan 20 Hp motor and the same transmission (they are interchangalbe between the models). The "A" series keep the Fords, but dropped the Hercules in favor of Waukesha motors. There was an A8 in the catalog for a period of time that had a Ford V8 for a powerplant!
So to answer the first question, early motorized cars were 1938 and on. The version like I own didn't come into production until 1966 and ended 1985-86.
Thanks to Uncle Sam, there the motorcar industry had some interesing products. The railroads had started to take delivery of the motorized cars before the war. The unions were in favor of them and were pushing for there purchase. But like most industry during WWII Fairmont slowed motorcar production WAY down. And in fact most of what they were building went to Uncle Sam for use overseas or training here stateside. I tried to find the photo of a car that had three 50 cal brownings mounted on it for bomber gunner training. The ones that were produced to go overseas had adjustable axles that would go from 30" to 66" guauge. They used the single cylinder motor with the belt drive. What would a railroad like th North Arkansas have...well if they were in good finacal standing (they must have been if they picked up 10 tea kettles off the NYC) they would have started to if not already had motorized trackcars on the line.
Posted 06 January 2006 - 12:54 PM
It will be interesting to see what I discover in regards to motorcars on the M&A circa '44. I suspect they were non-existant thereon.
As for the ex-NYC 2-8-0's:
Those were purchased after they had gone to a scrap dealer (Hyman-Michaels) in 1928-29. There was never another new steam locomotive purchased on the M&NA after the 30 class of 1914. The few that were purchased afterwards were used cast-offs from other railroads. Their insurmountable obstacles such as this is one of the many reasons I find the M&NA/M&A so interesting.
Money on the M&NA/M&A was so tight at times that paychecks had to be skipped.
The North Arkansas was literally a railroad that had insufficient financial reason to exist, ran from nowhere to nowhere, faced incredible odds, had difficulties at every turn, ran through some very inhospitable terrain (hogback profile lttered with 1.75% grades), had periods of poor management, a brief period of brilliant management (the Watkins years), but in spite of it all managed to do the impossible for nearly 50 years. Unfortunately, all the negatives it faced, conspired against to eventually do it in.
It's a good thing the A&O Sub portion survived.
Posted 07 January 2006 - 11:59 AM
Boy, that ain't no joke. I would hate to try to move a cut of rock hopper through the woods with three C420 and no rails. Oh wait, the hoppers and locomotives wouldn't have been there in the first place. ...silly me. So with Andre's account of the North Arkansas during that time frame...there is a possbilty that there was motorcars on the line. How else would they get to areas along Poker Bluff or King's River to work on the track. The question is were they pump cars or powered cars. Hmm , sounds like it's time to fire up the old time machine at go look! Andre, did you see photos of the section houses that you used for models when you built the North Arkansas? Maybe somewhere along the line someone caught a motorcar out side the section house. By the way, the motorcar that you can download at Trainsim is period for 1966 and on. Though the paint job & cab view are not correct...(I've got to get this digital camera issue fixed!).
Posted 07 January 2006 - 05:03 PM
I am finding the 40's , maybe , project interesting. So just to give me a idea I used a 2-8-0 by a gentleman from accrossed the pond and the best I could do going up Sleigman hill with out a helper was 10 cars. Now I also ran into another situation that you will have to explaine to old coonskin. Said 2-8-0 was turned on the wye and now rests at the crick bottom. I made sure to use only 1940's stock. These guys earned every cent they made.
Posted 07 January 2006 - 06:16 PM
"I am finding the 40's , maybe , project interesting."
My dearest Boundy, you are supposed to receive said possibility with a boundless bounty of enthusiasm.
Seriously, IF I tackle it, it will be a labor of love that will mainly be for my benefit.
You see, the ol' North Arkansas wormed its way into my heart some 30 years ago. My StLNA version merely whetted my appetite.
And now, via the magic of MSTS, I have the possibility of bringing it back to life.
So, IF I build the "M&A: 1944", it would be for personal reasons first. The possibility of sharing the finished product with others so they, too, can see for themselves some of the fascination of that obscure line, well... that would be frosting on the cake.
Now, having said that, let me remind you of something that I think is in StLNA manual: There was not a wye at Seligman. (another gasp!)
Nope, there was a turntable, but no wye. Of course, we all know that turntables cannot actually turn locomotives in MSTS, so I opted for a compact wye for operational flexibility. Ditto Walden and at Eureka Springs: No wye was at either location, but there is for operational considerations. (However, there was a turntable at Eureka Springs during the StLNA years.)
Say, you want a nigh-on dead ringer for an M&A steamer appropriate to 1944? Then hit the TS file library and do a search for either:
The above closely represents M&A #'s 60-62, which were purchased secondhand. Though the M&A got them from the SSW, the engines were originally Erie, and of the class the above models represent.
In fact, I have one of them myself... repainted/relettered for the M&A 61... complete with the litte circular M&A logo on the cab side!
So... "maybe" you're interested, eh?
Hmph. Who COULDN'T be interested in such a fascinating study such as the prototype M&A pics above depict??
Need another persuader? Okie doakie... feast your eyes on another burly 40 class (ex-NYC) hard at work in the Harrison yards. Note the M&A added "dog house", the neat little circular herald, the hard working hillbilly railroader ridin' the footboard... now that's railroadin'!!
Posted 08 January 2006 - 04:28 AM
A heavy consolidation should be able to do better than ten cars on Seligman. I have one of the files - I forget which - from train-sim. I then used Bill Hobbs' loco spreadsheet to put in the Baldwin catalogue specifications. It barges all around the St.L&N.A. like a bar room brawler.
It ain't fair, but I have to tell you that we have an "A" car at work with a Ford flathead V8. In fourth gear, that thing can break all of our speed limits. Trouble is, it has a leaky rear seal and loses oil at higher RPM's.
No, my boss isn't a musician. He worked for the railroad all of his adult life, except for a stint with Uncle Sam. He just doesn't buy fancy pick-ups and the like. Any and all spare cash goes into little brass locomotives.
Posted 08 January 2006 - 05:52 AM
If you build it, I will be there with checkbook in-hand
That is a pretty chunky-looking loco; I like it!
It might be the perspective of the photo, but it looks like the cab is sagging-down at the back. Compare the line of the walkway with the bottom of the cab.
Oh well, it's secondhand, it can't be perfect
Posted 08 January 2006 - 07:00 AM
> A heavy consolidation should be able to do
> better than ten cars on Seligman.
Tonnage ratings are an interesting aspect of rail simulation. Upfront, I'll say that I do not have ratings for the 40 class on Seligman Hill.
BUT... for funzies, let's see what we can extropolate from known factors.
The best pulling engines on the M&A (50 class) were rated for 1000 tons on the 1.75% grades. (The 40 class pictured above was good for about 950 tons.)
On the SLSF, one 1500 HP GP7 was rated for 770 tons on the 2.5% Boston Mountain grade from Schaberg to Winslow.
Now for the fun:
Let's look at typical car and lading weights in '44.
Would you say the average LT WT for a car would be around 20 tons?
Average lading at 40?
If so, that's 60 tons per load.
If an M&A 50 class left Harrison on a northward trek to Joplin with a train of loads, how many cars would it be good for on the 1.75% grades?
Using the above loaded weights: Sixteen. And a 50 class is the heavy hitter on the M&A.
A 40 class would be good for about 15 loads on the 1.75% grades.
Now, how much additional reduction of tonnage for the 2.6% of Seligman Hill?
I don't have actual figures, but seeing as 2.6% of Seligman Hill is almost another 1/3 steeper, then we can guestimate by doing a bit of math.
66% of 950 tons = 627 tons.
Using the loaded average of 60 per car, that equates to about 10.45 loaded cars.
Doubt that very many trains were dispatched on the M&A that were all loads, but nonetheless, it's fun to tinker with figures.
> I then used Bill Hobbs' loco spreadsheet to put in the Baldwin
> catalogue specifications.
Did you use the latest updated programs by Bill?
It's been our experience that once you do the calculations, you have to fine tune (using known factors if possible) to insure performance being as close to the prototype as practical.
> If you build it, I will be there with checkbook in-hand.
> That is a pretty chunky-looking loco; I like it!
Well, I confess, they kind of grow on you. Thought them a bit ungainly looking at first, but I really like them now.
> It might be the perspective of the photo, but it looks like the cab is
> sagging-down at the back.
I think you're right.
> Oh well, it's secondhand, it can't be perfect
That's the key. Also bear in mind they had been in (hard) service on the M&A for going on 17 years by the time that photo was taken. Photos I've seen of the 40 class right after taking delivery and back shopping by the M&NA crews indicate them to be placed into service in super condition. See pic attached to this post!
BTW, if you want to see what those engines looked like in NYC service, look for select examples within the NYC's "G" class consols at the Fallen Flag website.
Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:57 AM
For a loco that came from the scrap dealer, the NA shop crew did a great job fixin' 'er up.
But, in the later photo, after years of service, it looks like they rode 'er pretty hard!
When I first saw the "tilting" cab, I thought it might the wrong cab that had been added later; but your second photo confirms it to be original. However, notice what is different between the two photos. Sometime beween the two photos, the NA shop crew added what I think is a Power Reverse and raised the walkway in front of the cab.
This sorta means they weren't too cheap, because they could have gotten away with the old Johnson bar, or Screw Reverse; but decided to spend a couple bucks, add power reverse, and make the engineer's job a bit easier.
Posted 08 January 2006 - 12:11 PM
> For a loco that came from the scrap dealer, the NA shop crew
> did a great job fixin' 'er up.
The 40 class was aquired during the Stepenson (Gen. Mgr) years, and at his insistance. W. Stephenson was a deficit spender that liked to do things first class, regardless of the eventual financial consquences. He had the entire line looking its best ever... too bad it racked up such hugh deficits under his leadership! (Aggrevated by the 1929 crash and Depression that followed.)
Anyway, the 40 class were indeed done up and were in top notch condition when placed in service on the M&NA.
> But, in the later photo, after years of service, it looks like they rode 'er
> pretty hard!
The WW2 years for the M&A were years of unprecedented tonnage and an operating ratio that soared completely off the charts. The engines of the M&A were indeed "rode hard and put away wet". Everything that could run DID run, and upkeep was a "catch as catch can" affair, both in utilization and finances.
> When I first saw the "tilting" cab, I thought it might the wrong cab that
> had been added later; but your second photo confirms it to be original.
Well, the tilted cab is #49 and the out-shopped pic is #47. However, the overall look among the 40 class is the same. At first, I always thought the tiny cabs on such a fat-boilered brutes to be odd looking... now I like the way it emphasizes the huge boiler.
> However, notice what is different between the two photos. Sometime
> beween the two photos, the NA shop crew added what I think is a Power
> Reverse and raised the walkway in front of the cab.
Sharp eye! Ol' Tom is salty on his steamers, eh?
(Now, can you spot the diffences in boilers among the 40 class?)
> This sorta means they weren't too cheap, because they could have
> gotten away with the old Johnson bar, or Screw Reverse; but decided
> to spend a couple bucks, add power reverse, and make the engineer's
> job a bit easier.
I currently have no data on the dates of locomotive out shoppings. Perhaps when I go to the M&A Museum at Harrison next February to do some research, I can unearth some data. Otherwise, I'll have to guesstimate that they were added during the Lewie Watkins (Gen. Mgr) years. Lewie was better at keeping a good relationship between management and labor: He actually cared.
Ah, what "could" have been had the current owner (Frank Kell) not died and Lewie could have continued to have the backing that was given him during Frank's ownership. That so, could have been very possible the M&A could have survived in truncated form. Had it made it into the diesel years intact as an entity, they would have been powered by Alco RS1's. (Lewie Watkins had Alco come in and do a feasibility study, and they recomended RS1's w/MU's.)
Welp... all for now.
No wait... how 'bout 'nuther pic of a 40 class? Okie doakie... here's #40 near the end of the road... note the "shortline" style coal boards, and there's that doghouse again!
Posted 08 January 2006 - 07:03 PM
The maybe was taken out of contex. I meant maybe if you do the route, which I hope you do as the 40's is my period of rail roading. If you do it I will come with credit card in hand. Hope you and Jon can do a vandy coal tender as the B&O used them on every thing. The early ones as you have shown with the light power are great looking. Please do not give me do hard a pentence for my fauxpaw or what ever it was. I also tried some SD&AE 2-8-0's and they perform much better except for the #50. The light Pacfic from accrossed the way romps up the hill with three steel coaches at 25mph. It also fits the wye with no trouble. In all my tests I have used only 30 and 40's stock. PLEASE do the project.
Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:05 PM
> Got any photos of the 60 Class?
But of course! I have them in two flavors: A not-so-good view of one on the M&A, and one of the #61 when it was known as Erie #1579 (but essentially looks the same as it did once on the M&A property). For the first pic... see below! The second pic to follow!
Bountiful Boundy Bounded Beyond Benevolent By the following:
> Oh Great Poobah;
Heavy on the GREAT, please. Thank you.
> The maybe was taken out of contex. I meant maybe if you do the route...
OOoops. Me and my pontificating mouth done mis-funderstood yer intent.
> ...which I hope you do as the 40's is my period of rail roading.
Ah, take heart. There were vandy's on the 1944 roster, and if the "M&A: 1944" get's moved to the all important "Definite Maybe" status... vandy's would be included.
I have a pic... the line forms on the right! (i.e. I'll post it after the Herbie pics are posted.)
> Please do not give me do hard a pentence for my fauxpaw or
> what ever it was.
Nay, nay, faithful subject, the fox paw was mine.
> PLEASE do the project.
I shall continue to amass info, and a field trip to the region in is planned for sometime mid-late February. Too early to move it to "Defiinte Maybe" status, but things are looking promising.
Okay... now for the promised pics.
First up is a not-so-good shot of an M&A 60 class, #62...
Posted 08 January 2006 - 08:06 PM