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.
Paul A. Cutler III
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
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: 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
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)
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.
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!
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.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
DSchmittThe article is about the development of General Motors Diesel, Limited's "Portager" (4-wheel container car).
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.
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.
maxman
More great photos - thanks.
Paul3 I don't think the CGW & NH method really lifted the wheels or the landing gear off the deck of the flatcar. A major concern in the era (1937 to 1960) was that either the landing gear could collapse or that the tires could pop in railroad use. The idea of the jacks was to reinforce the landing gear and to lift the weight off the suspension of the wheels. This way the trailers could not bounce around and damage the landing gear or pop a tire. If you note, the drawings show both U-shaped plates under the landing gear and wood chocks around the tires. If the trailers were jacked completely off the deck, then these pieces would be useless.
I don't think the CGW & NH method really lifted the wheels or the landing gear off the deck of the flatcar. A major concern in the era (1937 to 1960) was that either the landing gear could collapse or that the tires could pop in railroad use. The idea of the jacks was to reinforce the landing gear and to lift the weight off the suspension of the wheels. This way the trailers could not bounce around and damage the landing gear or pop a tire. If you note, the drawings show both U-shaped plates under the landing gear and wood chocks around the tires. If the trailers were jacked completely off the deck, then these pieces would be useless.
The below was scanned from an article in the January, 1986 Mainline Modeler magazine. The article was by Mont Switzer. I did not see any photo credit. The car is a PRR F39 flat. You'll note that there are no springs in the tie down chain lines. Possibly PRR deemed these unnecessary. I also don't see any plates under the landing gear wheels. There is another jack support back at the trailer wheels. It is not clear to me that the beam spanning the two jacks is wood item, but it is hard to tell from the photo. I would think that the jack heads would dig into a wooden item, plus the beam appears to be painted. But again, the photo is not clear.
The author states in the article that "the landing gear dollies are not allowed to touch the deck of the flat car", which goes along with the landing gear being fragile. However, the photo is again unclear as to whether or not there is actually any space between the wheels and the deck.
The following scan, sorry for the quality, is of a part sprue in the Walthers GSC flat car kit. The jack assembly items are the H shaped thing at the top right of the sprue plus the adjacent bar which represents the beam. These hitch parts don't appear to be included in all of the kits, as I have several that didn't include them.
Some early Santa Fe TOFC photos can be found here:
Kansas Historical Society
Below is a photo showing tie down methods:
Matt from Anaheim, CA and Bayfield, COClick Here for my model train photo website
Paul
Those are great pictures. Thanks very much.
chutton01,I don't think the CGW & NH method really lifted the wheels or the landing gear off the deck of the flatcar. A major concern in the era (1937 to 1960) was that either the landing gear could collapse or that the tires could pop in railroad use. The idea of the jacks was to reinforce the landing gear and to lift the weight off the suspension of the wheels. This way the trailers could not bounce around and damage the landing gear or pop a tire. If you note, the drawings show both U-shaped plates under the landing gear and wood chocks around the tires. If the trailers were jacked completely off the deck, then these pieces would be useless.Trailers in this era did not have very strong landing gear. It's all very delicate looking compared to today's trailers. Also, the tires weren't exactly steel belted versions, either.
In the original days of the ACF hitch, there was a chain tie-down added to the rear of the trailers. The thinking is that it would prevent a trailer from bouncing and shifting off the side of the flat car. Eventually, this chain was determined to be an unneeded expense. I have heard that shifting trailers have caused some accidents over the years, but it's pretty rare.
The tie down used by the CGW was proven to keep the trailer in place no matter the circumstance. After being in use a year or so, the CGW had a terrible head on wreck with some TOFC's in the consist. Even though the trailer's nose was completely blown out by the load in the trailer shifting forward in the wreck, the trailer remained in place on the flat car. IOW, the tie downs were stronger than the trailer's own construction could withstand.
Paul3Here, take a look at these photos I just posted on FB:http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.195625593863322.45767.100002476473263&type=1&l=b78af36b8f
Dave,Here, take a look at these photos I just posted on FB:http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.195625593863322.45767.100002476473263&type=1&l=b78af36b8f
You should be able to see them even if you are not signed up on FB.
Pics 1 & 2 show in-transit pics of NH TOFC's. Note the position of the jacks and chains.Pics 3 & 4 show scanned drawings from the NH TOFC's from the early- to mid-1950's and beyond.Pics 5 & 6 show close up drawings scanned from a larger NH TOFC document of a later flat car, showing the tie down hardware.Pics 7 & 8 shows the detail drawings of the jack stands from the same drawing.Pic 9 shows the NH TOFC as it was when unloaded and waiting for trailers in South Boston.Pic 10 shows the NH TOFC facility track plan at South Boston.
I hope this helps you out.
hon30critter,Would the ACF hitch have replaced the jacks and chains in the late 1950's? Yes and no (depending on RR). Older TOFC RR's were slow to change their own equipment to the ACF hitch. Newer TOFC RR's were quicker to change over because they had fewer cars or were buying new ones with the ACF hitch already installed. Also, the older RR's sometimes were betting on some technology that became dead ends, like the NH's Clejan cars (also used on the NKP, IIRC). The NH's Clejan cars were built in 1956, IIRC, and they ran for several years on the NH (and they never got AF hitches). So, it's safe to say that the late 1950's would have seen several kinds of trailer tie-downs running at the same time or even on the same train. It took until the 1960's for the ACF hitch to completely replace all other kinds of tie downs. For example, the NH did not convert to ACF hitches until the arrival of it's fleet of G-85 flats in the mid-1960's.
That screw jack that you showed ( http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/229-7102 ) is exactly like the ones used on the NH's own TOFC fleet from 1937 until the 1960's. They used a pair of these, fore and aft, on each trailer with a wooden beam (4x4 or 6x6?) laid across the tops of them. The beam was perpendicular to the trailer. It's lack of stability was more than made up for by the 4 tie down chains with tightening hardware.
The tie down method shown in the NKP link shows a completely different kind of tie down compared to the CGW & NH method. Note the spring loaded chains and permanently mounted jack stands as well as the custom chain tie downs to the rub rails, which seem to have tracks on them. The CGW & NH method had solid, unsprung chains mounted to eyebolts in the floor located towards the center of the car while the jack stands were moveable and individual.
I have some NH pics at home showing what they did. I'll have to upload them later if I can remember to do so. The CGW & NH-type tie downs are, IMHO, an easier thing to model due to the lack of special hardware required.
Your scratch building ideas are very close to what I am thinking. I might try a shortened KaDee coupler spring.
I am feeling a bit guilty here because I seem to have caused the thread to drift away from the OP's original topic. If the OP is still following the thread might I suggest that he post pictures of the scratch built hitch posts? If the OP doesn't understand how to post pictures, here is a detailed explanation:
http://cs.trains.com/TRCCS/forums/p/181001/1981556.aspx#1981556
Kalmbach has a book about intermodal shipments and it covers equipment and processes from the 50's when things were getting started to the creation of today's containers by Sealand (at least I believe it was Sealand that invented them). It also talks a little about the development of the double stack trains and how trucks move the containers as well. Good book all and all.
Massey
A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his or her life, wrote a blank check made payable to "The United States of America" for an amount of "up to and including my life."
MR's "How to model Railroads of the 1950s" has, amongst other goodies, an article by Bill Darnaby on TOFC equipment.
Cheers, The Bear.
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
maxman hon30critter: Does anyone know if models of the piggy back trailer jacks or spring shock absorbers are available? As I tried to mention above, those jacks were included on the part spue for some model kits Walthers made for their GSC flatcars.
hon30critter: Does anyone know if models of the piggy back trailer jacks or spring shock absorbers are available?
Does anyone know if models of the piggy back trailer jacks or spring shock absorbers are available?
As I tried to mention above, those jacks were included on the part spue for some model kits Walthers made for their GSC flatcars.
CGW Piggy-Back Patent - Howard B. Atherton CGW Piggy-Back Patent Apparatus Sheet 1 Drawing 1936 - Howard B. Atherton CGW Piggy-Back Patent Apparatus Sheet 2 Drawing 1936 - Howard B. Atherton
hon30critter Does anyone know if models of the piggy back trailer jacks or spring shock absorbers are available?
As I tried to mention above, those jacks were included on the part spue for some model kits Walthers made for their GSC flatcars. Those kits could be built as a straight flat, as a bulkhead flat, or a trailer on flat model. The part sprues had the necessary parts for the bulkheads, the hitches, and end of car bridge plates. They also had parts included for the later style, probably similar to ACF style, hitches.
I don't know of anyone who makes the early style hitches as an after-market part. You would also be on your own for the spring shock absorbers.
That over-grown forklift sure makes the job of loading a trailer look easy. I wondered just how they did that. Not having a loading/unloading point close at hand has it's disadvantages.
Dr. Frankendiesel aka Scott Running BearSpace Mouse for president!15 year veteran fire fighterCollector of Apple //e'sRunning Bear EnterprisesHistory Channel Club life member.beatus homo qui invenit sapientiam
When I posted my tip on building piggy back trailer hitches I should have been more specific. The hitch I model is that built by American Car and Foundry. Pictures and diagrams of it can be found on pages 136 and 137 of the Car Builders Cyclopedia, 20th Edition. It was retractable and could be raised or lowered with a mechanical wrench by one person in about three minutes. I should also have mentioned that the cars I build also have retractable off-set ramps on either end of the car (the ramp is on the right side of the car as you view it end on). When lowered these ramps permitted driving the trailers over the gaps between the cars or between the car and the loading dock.
Not to take any business away from any manufacturer who provides models of the hitch, but the method described is a fun project, that doesn't take long, costs very little and adds significantly to both the look of the car and its functionality. With the guard rails on the sides holding the wheels in place and with the trailer's king-pin in the hitch, it is extremely unlikely that any of your trailers are going to "join the birds."
I should add that there were other varities of hitches...some railroads built their own. And there were methods other than hitches that were used, especially in the early days of piggy backing. Those who want to be faithful to the practices of any particular prototype road will have some research to do.
According to "Keystone Crossings", the ACF Model A hitch was released in 1956.
My crews are very happy to have them on my F30d's. DJ.
Thanks very much for the pictures. Clearly the jacks are purpose built and the cross bracing between the jacks answers my concerns about the stability of the jack system. I also note in the pictures that the chain tie downs seem to have a spring loaded shock absorbing system built into them. Another interesting detail.
The earliest reference to the "ACF Hitch" in Trains Magazine is in the June 1960 issue. It is refered to as the "overwelming favorite of all tiedowns". I have not found any info on when it was developed or how long it had been in use, but I can't see the hitch in any of the photos in a May 1960 article. From articles in Trains I get the impression appears that chain tiedowns were still common in the early 1960's.
Maybe these pictures may help.PiggyBack - A Service to Meet Competition
I always found the combination of struts, screw-jacks, chains, winches etc needed by early 'Piggyback' equipement to be fascinating - and can see why, with all the labor required to set that up, that railroads offering intermodal switched to 5th wheel hitches as soon as feasible. Imagine this requiring that screw/chain set-up, not so fast loading in that case.
I have no idea. That was a very long time ago and I was very young then.