Hi, I´m Christian,
do anybody know about 40´flatcars on the NYC? Can you show me some pictures?
Thanks forward!
Christian,
Here's a link that might help: http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-frt.html
The Freight car page is divided up into three major sections:
The photo seem to go by road number so it may have to hunt for it. However, the Diagram book has road number in the drawing. That will at least narrow it down for you.
Hope that helps...
Tom
FYI: Cab stands for caboose. So, any of the pictures that start out with "CAB" will be ones of cabooses. (They were normally #'d 17,000-21,000+.)
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Christian H wrote: does anybody know about 40´flatcars on the NYC? Can you show me some pictures?
Besides the Fallen Flags site, check the Canada Southern website for photos of NYC freight cars:
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/home.htm
As for the NYC's 40 foot (nominally) flat cars, according to the 1944 freight car diagram book, they had five genral classes of cars:
Class F-1, 30' 1-1/2" long, built 1905: P&LE 6883-6884
Class F-3, 42' long, built 1910: PMCK&Y 13450-13499
Class F-13, 41' 1-3/4" long, built 1910-1916: NYC 495293-495692, B&A 16000-16399, NYC 498000-498499, MC 32750-32899, MC 32700-32749
Class F-17, 42' long, built 1923: NYC 498500-498999
Class F-25, 42' 10-1/2" long, built 1930: NYC 496000-496299
That's 2352 cars in 1944, a healthy number (considering eastern roads generally had small flat car fleets). But by 1950, the roster was down to only 595 flats (out of 1796 cars) under 50 feet long, being supplantented by 52'-58' cars.
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
I don't know where you're getting your information but it's bogus. The NYC never had class designations for it's cars. They used lot numbers.There is no such thing as a Class F-1, F-3, F-13, F-17 or Class F-25 flatcar on the NYC.
orsonroy wrote:As for the NYC's 40 foot (nominally) flat cars, according to the 1944 freight car diagram book, they had five genral classes of cars:
Newyorkcentralfan wrote: I don't know where you're getting your information but it's bogus. The NYC never had class designations for it's cars. They used lot numbers.There is no such thing as a Class F-1, F-3, F-13, F-17 or Class F-25 flatcar on the NYC. orsonroy wrote:As for the NYC's 40 foot (nominally) flat cars, according to the 1944 freight car diagram book, they had five genral classes of cars:
Can you take a 12 MEG email? I'll gladly SHOW you the NYC's class numbers, straight off their 1944 diagram book. The NYC used BOTH class numbers and lots. If you've ever paid attention to the lots, they represent a single car order, irregardless of car type. You can have a dozen or more orders of the same, exact car, but with hugely different lot numbers. Most NYC fans refer to the lot numners, since no one's taken the time to cross reference every lot to its corresponding class diagram.
When in doubt, refer to the source material, not memory.
orsonroy wrote: I'll gladly SHOW you the NYC's class numbers, straight off their 1944 diagram book.
I'll gladly SHOW you the NYC's class numbers, straight off their 1944 diagram book.
Are you sure those are class numbers and not just page numbers? If you look at the index (and in some car tables), the tables refer to F-25, B-14, and the like as "page numbers". Also, there seem to be a lot more "class numbers" than car types. For example, the diagram of the car you call "F-25" is on page F-25 while the production data is on page F-26. If that notation at the corner of the diagram page was the car class, what does the notation F-26 on the next page represent?
KL
A man who can read for comprehension. ;-)
Eric
Kurt_Laughlin wrote: orsonroy wrote: I'll gladly SHOW you the NYC's class numbers, straight off their 1944 diagram book. Are you sure those are class numbers and not just page numbers? If you look at the index (and in some car tables), the tables refer to F-25, B-14, and the like as "page numbers". Also, there seem to be a lot more "class numbers" than car types. For example, the diagram of the car you call "F-25" is on page F-25 while the production data is on page F-26. If that notation at the corner of the diagram page was the car class, what does the notation F-26 on the next page represent?
Don't shoot! Hold your fire! I'm just a CNW fan passing through ....
Just a little supplemental and possibly irrelevant information from the 1943 Car Builder's Cyclopedia as reprinted in Train Shed Cyclopedia No.17
They show NYC well-hole flat car "Class 704-F" 39'3" long Car number 499064
NYC depressed center flat car for transformers "Class 699-F" 37'6" long, car number cannot be read.
Dave Nelson
Eric and Kurt,
Whoa! Before you two go shooting off at the mouth again, why don't you cut Ray some slack. First off, he's a very knowledgeable modeler and knows quite a bit about RRing - especially about the NYC. You guys are blowing steam like he's some sort of idiot.
Secondly, there's a way to disagree with someone without being disagreeable! You should feel free to question someone's sources. But try being a little more tactful about it next time...
tstage wrote: Eric and Kurt, Before you both go shooting off at the mouth again, why don't you cut Ray some slack. First off, he's a very knowledgeable modeler and knows quite a bit about RRing. You guys are blowing steam like he's some sort of idiot. Lighten up! There's a way to disagree with someone without be disagreeable!
Before you both go shooting off at the mouth again, why don't you cut Ray some slack. First off, he's a very knowledgeable modeler and knows quite a bit about RRing. You guys are blowing steam like he's some sort of idiot. Lighten up! There's a way to disagree with someone without be disagreeable!
Tom, that's not fair to me at all. Here's what I wrote:
"Are you sure those are class numbers and not just page numbers? If you look at the index (and in some car tables), the tables refer to F-25, B-14, and the like as "page numbers". Also, there seem to be a lot more "class numbers" than car types. For example, the diagram of the car you call "F-25" is on page F-25 while the production data is on page F-26. If that notation at the corner of the diagram page was the car class, what does the notation F-26 on the next page represent?"
How does this come under the category of "shooting off at the mouth?" What did I say that was being disagreeable? How does this make Ray sound like an idiot?
Perhaps you should try just reading the words I wrote rather than assuming I must be accusing or insulting.
Forgive me. You are absolutely correct. I was looking more at Eric's initial post and then mistakingly lumping you both together. After re-reading your post, you did respond in the right way. I, on the other hand, didn't do as well, did I? I guess I was rather quick to come to the defense of Ray - NOT that he isn't capable of defending himself well enough.
Again, Kurt, please forgive me for my rather terse and inaccurate accusation about you. I was wrong and I am sorry.
Well, no hard feelings. . . The evils of remote communication.
Kurt,
Even so, I need to make sure that I read everyone's posts through thoroughly before responding.
First off, I *DID* cut him some slack. I didn't say anything about him, only his sources being bogus.
Second, I was extremely tactful especially since I only spoke about his sources and not his intelligence.
I resent the hell out of you suggesting that I was anything but that.
tstage wrote:Eric and Kurt, Whoa! Before you two go shooting off at the mouth again, why don't you cut Ray some slack. First off, he's a very knowledgeable modeler and knows quite a bit about RRing - especially about the NYC. You guys are blowing steam like he's some sort of idiot.Secondly, there's a way to disagree with someone without being disagreeable! You should feel free to question someone's sources. But try being a little more tactful about it next time... Tom
Newyorkcentralfan wrote:A man who can read for comprehension. ;-) Eric
Eric,
I'll grant you that your first response, in and of itself, only questioned Ray's sources. I guess it was the above response to Kurt's post to Ray that lead me to believe otherwise: "...who can read for comprehension ;-)" implies that the other person in comparison (in this case, Ray) either has none or has trouble with it. That's the statement that bothered me. Sorry, Eric, perhaps the use of the term "idiot" was a bit over board on my account.
OK, I need to apologise: NYC Fan's right: what I thought were class numbers are actually page numbers. There's no good explanation in the 1944 or 1950 diagram books, but I found this in the 1924 book:
"Car diagrams and tabulations are paged in accordance with the following system. The letter refers to the initial type of car. For example, "B" refers to Box Cars, "H" to Hopper Cars, etc.; the odd numerals referring to diagrams, and the even numerals to the corresponding data sheets. For example, "G-3" refers to Wood Drop Bottom Gondola Cars, and "G-4" refers to the data sheet corresponding."
So I was wrong about the NYC having car classes: they didn't. I think I was biased by all the other roads I look at on a regular basis which DO have car classes. While other roads only used car series numbers, the NYC has what I think is a unique system in their lot number series, which is actually VERY confusing, since different lots refer to the same exact cars. And on the diagram sheets, all of those lot numbers ARE lumped together into the same drawings.