hon30critter Thanks Paul. I will have to do some research to see what Canadian Pacific was using. Dave
Thanks Paul.
I will have to do some research to see what Canadian Pacific was using.
Dave
According to an article in the April 1977 issue of Trains Magazine, CP went seriously into TOFC in 1958. Around that time they bought a 50% interest in Smith Transport (Canada's "largest trucker"). CP converted short flat cars to "circus-loading jack-and-chain TOFC cars and also bought new "single-trailer cars of its own design equipped with ACF hitches".
The article is about the development of General Motors Diesel, Limited's "Portager" (4-wheel container car).
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.
DSchmittThe article is about the development of General Motors Diesel, Limited's "Portager" (4-wheel container car).
chutton01
Wow! More amazing detailed information! This thread has presented some very interesting super detailing ideas.
Thank you to everyone who has contributed, including the OP.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
This is a good thread, can I offer another twist on it?
Here is the 'lashing' or 'clamping - chaining' of the new nice John Deere HD tractors on this flatbed train car. I had an old shot of this that was missing some forward facing chains. I hope this photo clears that up, I believe this is within the scale acceptance.. If it is not, please advise, as I would like to learn more about that! (Geez, I wish I had one of those JD's, & some accessories!!!) Please comment, I appreciate hearing from you!
maxman,The title of that article is kinda misleading; "EARLY Piggyback Trailers" and it shows a PRR TrucTrain and then a 40' van? Um, that's not very early considering PRR's F39 75' flats were first made in 1954 and 40-footers are a '60's-'70's kind of van (as said in the pic caption). The CGW & NH had been doing "modern" TOFC for 17-18 years by that point. Sort of like seeing an article titled "EARLY Diesels" and showing 2nd Generation units like GP35's and U25B's.
I'm not so sure about the lack of a sprung chain in that PRR photo. If you follow the chain from the deck ring towards the trailer, first there's the hook, then some kind of swivel link, then it looks like to me some kind of spring (metal or rubber), then a U-shaped link to the tightening device. Whatever the U-shaped device is, it's certainly isn't normal chain. Also note that there are extra tie downs, fore and aft, running down to the unique side rub rails, making a total of 8 tie downs per trailer. The CGW/NH method only used 4 chains and no more.
On the CGW/NH jacks, there certainly was a wood beam laid on top of the jacks. If you look in my Facebook link, you'll not only see the wood beams drawn on the original NH documents, but also in the picture of the empty flats waiting to be loaded.
The metal plates might have only been on the NH. I have the NHRHTA's "Shoreliner" magazine, Volume 33 Issue 3, and in the article called, "Piggyback on the New Haven Railroad", by Marc Frattasio, on page 13 there are three great shots of the NH's tie down method. These shots were taken by the NHRR underneath both the front and rear of a trailer. The landing gear is clearly on the deck. The metal plates they used are actually bowed from the weight and dented from the abuse they got. Other RR's might have lifted their landing gear right off the deck, but clearly the NH was not one of these.
And yes, that's the sprue from the Walthers GSC flat. Note that this is meant to be used with the kingpin on the trailer, while most pre-ACF hitches ignored the kingpin entirely.
Paul A. Cutler III
Is that the old Intermountain HO 60ft wood deck flatcar (I guess MTH is selling them now)?Those are the chains and turnbuckles that come with the kit, and which nominally fit in the mounting rails embedded in the decks, right? I guess loads are also secured via mounting points on the outsides of the flat, but wasn't the whole point of the inboard mounting rails to avoid that?
Of course, when you need prototype photos of US equipment, look to British Websites to save the day - this prototype image looks even more like Chad's model (and there's at least two more similar images in that lot)
Paul3 maxman,The title of that article is kinda misleading; "EARLY Piggyback Trailers" and it shows a PRR TrucTrain and then a 40' van? Um, that's not very early considering PRR's F39 75' flats were first made in 1954 and 40-footers are a '60's-'70's kind of van (as said in the pic caption). The CGW & NH had been doing "modern" TOFC for 17-18 years by that point. Sort of like seeing an article titled "EARLY Diesels" and showing 2nd Generation units like GP35's and U25B's. I'm not so sure about the lack of a sprung chain in that PRR photo. If you follow the chain from the deck ring towards the trailer, first there's the hook, then some kind of swivel link, then it looks like to me some kind of spring (metal or rubber), then a U-shaped link to the tightening device. Whatever the U-shaped device is, it's certainly isn't normal chain. Also note that there are extra tie downs, fore and aft, running down to the unique side rub rails, making a total of 8 tie downs per trailer. The CGW/NH method only used 4 chains and no more. On the CGW/NH jacks, there certainly was a wood beam laid on top of the jacks. If you look in my Facebook link, you'll not only see the wood beams drawn on the original NH documents, but also in the picture of the empty flats waiting to be loaded. Paul A. Cutler III
Paul: The only reason I posted the picture was to show an alternative method, and possibly a little clearer picture of one tie down method. I'm not responsible for the article title! Actually, in the context of the article, I believe that the author's intent was not to model an early trailer, but to model a trailer earlier than the Athearn model he started with. The caption you refer to is for the Athearn model.
Regarding the trailer shown on the car, I don't know if that's 32 foot or 40 foot trailer. The opening paragraphs of the article state among other things "this is how it was done in 1954" and "the single axle was common in 1954". But since the photo is undated, I have to take the author's word for it.
You may be right about the spring things. It does look like in the picture that the hook comes out of the center of the device, so there could be some sort of spring in there. Or it could just be some sort of fancy swivel. But it would be easier to model this arrangement rather than coils springs, which was another reason to post the picture.
Concerning the beam, I went back and looked at your pictures and the wood beam certainly looks like an unfinished wood beam. My only reason for questioning the beam shown in my post was that it appears to have a smoother finish and I don't see any split ends as shown in your photos. The beam in the PRR picture also appears to be the same color as the jacks, or at least painted white. This to me would imply that they were more likely to be viewed as a part of the car's equipment rather than potential firewood for some vagrant. But then again the light color could just be due to the lighting used for the photograph. I really don't know
maxman,I understand completely. I know it wasn't your article, and heck, even the author probably didn't write it (that would be the editor's job). I was just pointing it out. No criticism of yourself was meant or implied.
The PRR trailer shown looks to be a 32' or 35' van as it's on the 75' flat meant for twins. And the car looks like new and appears to be the very first one, putting it at 1954.
WRT the tie downs, while they certainly look easier than springs, the easiest method is just to use ordinary chains.
I figure the PRR also used wood as it wouldn't damage the trailer. You are probably right about it being painted. It might have been painted just for the picture, however.