That's almost too simple an explanation!
Here's an interior shot showing the waffles:
Notice the horizontal bars inside the waffles--suitable for straps and ropes.
Ed
Semi-related: what is on the inside of the waffles on the waffle boxcars? I know it some sort of "load restraint system," but what does that actually mean?
Guy Papillon Wayne, Do you know if any model of this car exist?....
Wayne,
Do you know if any model of this car exist?....
Not that I'm aware of, Guy. The CPR did numerous "experimental" cars, with only, at most, a few examples built of each. Another one was a Fowler Patent single sheathed boxcar with corrugated steel side panels instead of wooden planks for sheathing.
.....
wp8thsubA major difference between the two appears to be the CP design using separate roof panels, while B&O used a continuous sheet that bypassed this seam. I wonder if anyone with the B&O was aware of the older CP idea when the wagontop was developed?
It's difficult to know, Rob, but the B&O's continuous sheet version was a major improvement over roof systems of that time, when leakage to the elements (especially after the cars were in use for a few years) was a major problem for many commodities. I think that CP's version was more of an early foray into all-steel construction rather than having much to do with tight roofs. The photo is from a book owned by a friend, and it dates from, I think, the early part of the second decade of the 20th century.
Wayne
7j43kI suspect many of our citizens would view them as "zip lok access" cars. Americans' free enterprise tendencies can be pretty vigorous.
Cheers, the Bear.
PS. I am reading.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
Yes, Tom. It's .10".
Thanks.
On the plus side, at least I know someone is reading what I wrote.
7j43kIt's interesting that the side sheets were .067" (1/16") thick. On a typical boxcar, they were .010".
Are you sure about the side sheet thickness of a "typical" boxcar, Ed? 10-mil (0.01") is only 2-3 sheets of printer paper thick. Did you mean 0.100"?
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
I've spent some more time studying the plans for the MILW 40' box under duscussion. The plans, incidentally, appear to be for the final version of the car, as opposed to the one Exactrail did. They are in the 1953 Car Builders Cyclopedia.
One thing I noticed is that what I took for a rivet or a bolt (to attach the sheet) looks like, on closer examination, a very small rib. It's not much taller than the thickness of the sheet metal. It doesn't look to me to be big enough to add much rigidity to the sheet. It perhaps is there for assembly purposes.
So, on this further investigation, it appears that the side sheets were 13'-11" long, 19 1/2" wide (tall) and had a small horizontal rib maybe 1/8" high 1 3/4" down from the top, and a much larger one (the one we see) 1 3/4" up from the bottom. This one is about 3/4" high and 1 1/2 wide.
It's interesting that the side sheets were .067" (1/16") thick. On a typical boxcar, they were .010". Also, the MILW car had 16 side posts, while an AAR had 10. Depending on how one counts. So it would appear that MILW wanted to use thinner side sheets, but felt compelled to close up the spacing between posts.
The sideposts on an AAR car are 42" apart. On the MILW car, they are 26". It appears that one could have made a boxcar in the AAR style with thinner side sheets and more posts.
It's interesting that MILW chose to build the car sides out of sheet metal strips. Why not just put up panels like a regular boxcar? Perhaps it had something to do with the assembly process. Remember, the car was welded, not riveted.
Another reason to have that rib there could be to allow the sheet metal to expand during welding without warping the flat element of the side. Essentially making the rib a thermal expansion device.
It would be really neat to learn more about how MILW put these cars together. In this case, the sides especially.
One more thing I see on the plans. The ribs are not "ribs", they are "Bumps".
So we're talking about a bump sided car. Right?
There is a good discussion of the development of the rib sides by the Milwaukee Road in the recently published book, Hiawatha - Nothing Faster on Rails. The new set of Hiawatha cars built in 1936 used Cor-Ten steel and improved welding methods. Those cars had ribs, or corrugations (half round contour belts), above and below the side windows, and the ribs both covered the weld seams and added structural strength.
The Milwaukee Road's experience with those cars convinced them that additional ribs were needed to adequately maintain the integrity of the car sides. Thus equipment built in 1937 had four horizontal ribs. The 1938 cars had 7 horizontal ribs, however two of those ribs between windows were purely cosmetic, so there were five "real" structural ribs. The use of ribs continued in the 1942 built passenger cars. And as older lightweight cars were shopped they often but not always had ribs added.
The horizontal ribs on car sides were really the Milwaukee Road's innovation and idea for structural stability but also for an interesting and unique decorative look on passenger cars. Presumably they were strictly structural on their freight cars and cabooses.
Of course horizontal stamped corrugations had been common on the steel ENDS of boxcars and other house cars from the early days of all-steel cars, with some flat slab-ended cars such as the PRR's X29 as important exceptions. I have even seen a photo of an early steel boxcar where the ends were concentric circles of corrugations, like the bottom of an old frozen orange juice can!
I believe the Soviets copied the Milwaukee Road's idea for horizontal ribs and I have also seem them on photos of older Chinese rail equipment although that might have been Soviet built or designed.
Dave Nelson
challenger3980 chutton01 Wrote: In fact, there's not all that many curtain sided truck trailers in North America (there are some, but only a small percent of the fleet) - perhaps too labor intensive to tighten all those straps along the bottom edge of the side. You must not live in the PNW, or any where that lumber is transported much. Maybe being a professional driver, I notice the equipment more than those in other occupations, but out west there is no shortage of curtain vans. As to "Tightening all those straps" being too labor intensive, it is much FASTER, less labor intensive and MUCH SAFER, than climbing on top of the load to tarp it,and untarp, and roll up those tarps at the unload, which would be the alternative to just about any load, that is moving in a curtain van
chutton01 Wrote:
In fact, there's not all that many curtain sided truck trailers in North America (there are some, but only a small percent of the fleet) - perhaps too labor intensive to tighten all those straps along the bottom edge of the side.
You must not live in the PNW, or any where that lumber is transported much.
Maybe being a professional driver, I notice the equipment more than those in other occupations, but out west there is no shortage of curtain vans.
As to "Tightening all those straps" being too labor intensive, it is much FASTER, less labor intensive and MUCH SAFER, than climbing on top of the load to tarp it,and untarp, and roll up those tarps at the unload, which would be the alternative to just about any load, that is moving in a curtain van
As to "Tightening all those straps" being too labor intensive, it is much FASTER, less labor intensive and MUCH SAFER, than climbing on top of the load to tarp it,and untarp, and roll up those tarps at the unload, which would be the alternative to just about any load, that is moving in a curtain van.
In regards to the security and pilferage problems with curtain van rail cars, the typical loads that would be carried in curtain sided cars, would be of the lower value(not that lumber is CHEAP) high volume cargoes, that wouldn't be likely to be stolen. It is not IPADs, large screen TVs and cell phones that would be hauled in curtain sided cars, how often is steel stolen off of flatcars?
to steal a worthwhile amount of lumber, you would need at minimum a heavy pick up truck pulling a decent sized flatbed trailer, and least 2 and preferably 4 men to toss the lumber off the rail car, and load it on to the trailer, this would be time consuming HARD labor, something that most theifs avoid like the plague.
Lumber is not an easy to sell, high value commodity like electronics. You may find some unscrupulous builders that might bite, but it would be at a signifcantly reduced price, which takes you back to the High labor/low return that most theifs avoid at all cost.
Doug
more than 27 years, 2,500,000 miles moving America's freight
May your flanges always stay BETWEEN the rails
Out of curiosity, on the subject of sides, do any of the US railroads have “Curtain side” freight cars? http://nzrailwaysrollingstocklists.weebly.com/zhc---curtainside-of-2012.html
IIRC the Milwaukee boxcars with horizontal ribs were built bythe Milwaukee Road in their own shops. Unlike a 'normal' steel boxcar, which had panels that were riveted together in vertical strips, they used horizontal sections that were welded together. It may be in large part just that doing it that way was what the Milwaukee shops were used to doing, since they had used the same technique in building "Hiawatha" passenger cars.
http://trainweb.org/hiawatha/Mitchell.jpg
doctorwayneWhile not identical to the B&O cars, this experimental design by CPR predated them by, if I recall correctly, about 20 years...
A major difference between the two appears to be the CP design using separate roof panels, while B&O used a continuous sheet that bypassed this seam. I wonder if anyone with the B&O was aware of the older CP idea when the wagontop was developed?
Rob Spangler
Do you know if any model of this car exist?
Tom,
Thank you for starting this very instructive thread.
Guy
Modeling CNR in the 50's
wp8thsub...In many cases, other roads don't see the same advantages and don't copy the design. Baltimore & Ohio liked their "wagon top" cars, but nobody else really did, to cite another example....
While not identical to the B&O cars, this experimental design by CPR predated them by, if I recall correctly, about 20 years:
Out of curiosity, on the subject of sides, do any of the US railroads have “Curtain side” freight cars?
I haven't seen anything like those cars here.
I suspect many of our citizens would view them as "zip lok access" cars. Americans' free enterprise tendencies can be pretty vigorous.
Thanks, Ed. I appreciate the explanations.
The outside-braced "panel" boxcars are among my favorites; primarily because of their visual interest. Makes me all the more glad that I'm modeling the 40s.
Gotcha.
On the modern cars, those verticals are doing two things. They're keeping the roof and the underframe apart. Yes, apart. And they are also keeping the side sheets in one plane, because the sides contribute to the strength and rigidity of the car. Those side posts are acting very much like the ribs you see on the side of girder bridges. Without the side posts, the car would fall apart. With a load in a train, for sure. Maybe just sitting empty on a siding would be OK.
"Regular" old boxcars--the generic steel ones from the '40's--did the same thing. It's just that they had the posts on the inside, where they didn't show. And then the inside of the car was covered with wood. By going to the modern version, you don't need that wood lining anymore, to present a smooth interior wall.
That last one you show is the wild card. THAT one does NOT use the side sheathing for strength. Those wood planks could all fall off the car, and it would still work great. Though the load would be perilously exposed.
And I'll also throw in the "double-sheathed" cars. Those go WAY back. They're pretty much like the oldie we just talked about. Except they covered over the framing that you see with (non-structural) wood. Also, said framing tended to be wood. And needed the outer sheath to keep the weather off.
tstageWhen I was referring to "vertical" ribs I was thinking of the pronouced ribs on these later-era MILW boxcars... which appear to be similar to the ones found on these covered hoppers...
The later cars are basically off-the-shelf Pullman Standard designs with exterior posts between the flat side sheets. Numerous customers bought them, in several variations with different cubic capacities. Other manufacturers use an almost identical arrangement.
The earlier cars with the horizontal ribs were an in-house MILW design, built by their own shiops.
Ed,
Sorry for the incorrect and nebulous terminology on my part.
When I was referring to "vertical" ribs I was thinking of the pronouced ribs on these later-era MILW boxcars,
which appear to be similar to the ones found on these covered hoppers;
NOT the one's found on the older 6- & 8-panel outside braced wood boxcars:
There's been some talk in this column about "vertical" ribs on freight/box cars. I'd sure like to see an example. The only one that comes to mind for me in Pennsy's G32C gons:
In this case, you'll note that the ribs span the smaller dimension of the panels.
When ribs are impressed in metal for strengthening a panel, it is best to have the ribs span the narrower distance. For a boxcar that commonly has framing members at the top and bottom of the sides and has vertical posts between the two, it would make no sense for vertical ribs in the side panels because they'd be spanning about 10 feet instead of maybe 2 feet. If there were also horizontal structural elements spaced less than 2 feet apart, vertical strengthening ribs could make sense.
As Doug has just mentioned, there's lotsa boxcars out there with vertical elements visible. Those are commonly called posts, not ribs. They are NOT stamped into the side sheets as they are in the Milwaukee car under discussion.
With the Milwaukee boxcars, the side panels are certainly interesting. They were made up of sheet steel pieces 13' 11" long and about 18" wide (tall). There was a rib running along the bottom of each sheet 1 3/4" up. When installed, that rib covered the attachment points of the sheet below, which were 1 3/4" from the top. It appears that the sheets were riveted or bolted to the vertical posts of the car. Those posts were spaced at about 28" apart, much closer together than typical boxcars. I have the impression that the lower edge of a piece was continuously welded along the seam with the piece below after assembly.
So, besides stiffening the side sheets, the rib also covered over the mounting projection of the panel below it. And it kept that fastener weather protected. The whole system was pretty much like shingle roofing.
Contrary to earlier statements here the ribs contributed nothing to enlarging the interior space, as the insides were sheathed with wood laid over the vertical posts. The ribs had nothing to do with lading tie down or clearance.
If you are also talking about wood sided as well as steel, they may not be "Ribbed" but rather Out sided braced single sheathed" boxcars, where the sheathing is on the inside of the car affording a smoother interior wall, and having the wall framing on the outside.
Some cars, particularly refers, were double sheathed, and the wall framing was completely hidden, but still there.
The only horizontal interior bracing that I ever saw on furniture, dry or refer vans was either a raised padded rail(in furniture vans) that a rope or strap could be passed between the rail and wall for securing the load, or "E-Rail" that had slots, usually vertically oriented, that straps or bars could lock into.
"Logistics Posts" are typically arranged vertically, with the slots also vertically oriented, the slots in these are identical to "E Rail" and accept standard straps, but are also used with "Decking Bars" to create multi-level decks in furntiure and other vans to maximize the loading of the cargo space.
As with anything there are exceptions, and where I work now, we have two "Squeeze" trailers that have horizontal logistics rail(4 rows per wall). These are very specialized trailers that we haul large blocks (typically 40"Thick x 86"Wide x 109"Long) of Poly Urethane foam in. The trailers have a hydraulicly driven chain drive inside that power a "Tower" on either side of the trailer. Typically 15 "Buns" are loaded into a 53' trailer, then reinforced aluminum panels(Doors) are placed against the last bun, a pair of heavy duty aluminum I Beams are placed across the doors between the towers, and the towers are advanced until the machinery can no longer compress the foam any further, then decking bars are placed in the logistics rails, and the towers backed off to the rear of the trailer and the I Beams removed and another set of buns, typically 11 or 12 in the second squeeze, the process is repeated usually up to 5 squeezes with some loose behind the final squeeze, until the trailer is full, or the full order is complete.
I don't know the maximum time that the foam is allowed to be "Sqeezed", but my company's goal is keep the load under pressure for 24 hours or less when possible, and we try to schedule our loding/unloading accordingly, but I have heard of a competitor having loads sqeezed for up to 3 days. The customers typically allow the compressed foam 24 hours before cutting for furniture use.
Depending on the bun density and thickness (The buns are stood vertically in the trailer) 15 or 16(not to often) will fit loose on a 53' trailer and I have loaded/unloaded as many as 62 (Very soft and not as thick) and more typically 50-52 buns on a 53' trailer. Being able to get typically more than three"Loads" on a trailer goes a long way to making a run more profitable. Depending on how quick the loading/unloading crews are, (and if they have the proper equippment) it takes 2-3 hours to load/unload. Having a clamp equipped fork lift definitely speeds up the process, but several of our customers still use standard forklifts, it is doable, but definitely slows the process.
I have never heard of railcars being Squeeze" loaded, and end loading maximizes the efficiency of the system, it could be done with a dual opposing squeezing center to ends system. With the low weight of the cargo(my GROSS weight, 3 axle tractor and fully loaded trailer is usually about 51,000#) an 89' boxcar should still cube out before scaling out. The down side is it is a niche market with somewhat expensive equipment, it would most likely be privately owned cars, but with the 3-4 X capacity would have the ability to offset the cost of empty moves to returncars for loading.
I work out of our Portland, OR plant, and have been serving a customer in Nampa, ID(near Boise) for quite a few years, and have also recently started serving a Salt Lake City, UT customer that a common carrier hauling our trailer has not been very reliable about being available, had been doing.
DSchmitt I wonder what the reason for the door design of 40' double door automobile box car MILW 6675 was. It appears it may have two separate single doors, not a double width door opening.
I wonder what the reason for the door design of 40' double door automobile box car MILW 6675 was. It appears it may have two separate single doors, not a double width door opening.
From ORER, the door opening for this car is listed as 12' 5" wide. It does have a "double width door opening".
tstageAnd why are some horizontal (as seen above) and others vertical?
Much of the reason for these variations in freight cars lies with experimentation and opinion rather than any objective advantage. Different roads' engineering/mechanical people came up with different ways to design cars, and if they were successful, thousands of a particular design could be built. The originators often felt a sense of pride in developing something unique that worked, regardless of whether there was any demonstrable improvement over some other idea. Something like the MILW rib-side cars could be welcomed as part of the corporate identity.
In many cases, other roads don't see the same advantages and don't copy the design. Baltimore & Ohio liked their "wagon top" cars, but nobody else really did, to cite another example.
In some instances, a railroad would persevere with a particular design out of apparent stubborness, even after that design proved inferior. Pennsy's 2D-F8 truck had weak sideframe castings which were prone to cracking around the spring box, but Pennsy continued to manufacture it after better sideframes were developed by others.
Freight car manufacturers also came up with their own ways of doing things, which may or may not have been better than what others did. Pullman Standard had their own unique ends and roofs. They weren't necessarily better or worse than what another builder like ACF used, just different.
A friend did a close examination of the design several years ago in preparation for doing the patterns for Sunshine's resin kit for the Milwaukee Road cars. He examined original construction drawings and made a visit to the Illinois Railway Museum to do a first-hand examination of the cars. I don't know whether he ever determined anything about the structural strength issues. The edges of each panel were formed into a shape that would interlock with the adjoining panel with minimal use of fasteners.
tstageSo, what advantage or use would a vertical ribbed boxcar have over a horizontal one?
I hope you’re also in a reading frame of mind Tom. http://www.riverraisinmodels.com/libraryData/milwhrbox.pdf Don’t know how they compare to the ExactRail offering, but I obtained two kits from Rib Side Cars. http://www.ribsidecars.com/ Cheers, the Bear.
I wonder what the reason for the door design of 40' double door automobile box car MILW 6675 was. It appears it may have two separate single doors, not a double width door opening. I have never seen or heard of that before. Did any other railroad have a similar design? Also the left door is wider than the right door.
On further study it looks like the wider left hand door has been made even wider by welding an extension to it. In which case the car does have a single wide opening.
Definately a unusual design.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.