Tom,
Interesting. It's gone from the CISX listing in my April 1944 ORER, so sometime between Jan. 1942 and then it disappeared into government service. Bear gave us the link to the only other picture on the web of it on Fallen Flags.
Hey, at least I guessed right on how long the depressed center platform was.
Now to figure out the disposition of the car.
Thanks for the tip on the Overland trucks. I'll look into that.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
mlehmanmaybe the wheelbase is too short?
Having had a closer look, and while just a guesstimate, those trucks wheel base might be closer to 10'6".
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
What a most entrhalling,interesting and illuminating discussion,I have throughly enjoyed it!
For what it's worth,I find no mention of the car or owner in my 1953 ORER.
Steve
Note that the info from Tomd81 says the Buckeye trucks have 36" wheels, rather than the usual 33". Also, those plain bearings were probably exceptionally large. Look at the size of those covers!
I wonder if anybody ever made a Buckeye plain bearing truck in OO scale. If so, it might be just the ticket (with HO length bolsters & axles).
Tom
Greenway also sells buckeye trucks but the look they are roller bearings
http://greenwayproducts.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=1079
http://greenwayproducts.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=1084
Funaro also makes the trucks and these are roller bearings
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Funaro-F-C-T-1-T1-Battleship-Gondola-Freight-BUCKEYE-TRUCKS-Short-Wheelbase-/231299812543?pt=Model_RR_Trains&hash=item35da8b0cbf
I do not have access to any of the old ORER's, but did you look at the other reporting marks. USCX? That many of been when Carnegie Steel changed thier name or was acquired. It could have also been removed from interchange and just used as an interplant car.
Wish that I new more.
If you are interested in large flats or schnable cars, there are several thousand photos of them on my website http://www.garlic.com/~tomd
TomD
poppyl Not the gun assembly itself, just the turret housing. NS hauled a sixteen inch gun tube (no turret) out of Dahlgren a couple of years ago on two "regular" flats.
Not the gun assembly itself, just the turret housing. NS hauled a sixteen inch gun tube (no turret) out of Dahlgren a couple of years ago on two "regular" flats.
I actually saw this. I was too busy having my jaw drop to fish my phone out of my pocket and get even one picture of it.
Bear,
I suspect you're right, it's the wheelbase I'm seeing as part of what doesn't quite match. I think there will be a model of the standard Army haevy-duty flat forthcoming that has longer wheelbase 6-wheel trucks IIRC. That's a possibility, as I don't believe there are any long WB Buckeyes available.
those are being made by Albrae, and they are roller bearings
http://www.albraemodels.com/models/H402-1.htm
No luck on OO Buckeyes with a quick search. Hopefully, the BCW trucks or whichever ones do work allow enough clearance to upgrade to 36" wheels.
I did see that a pair of those brass OMI Buckeye trucks mentioned earlier is on ebay Buy it Now for $69.95, with 28 people watching...must be a lot of people sitting on those trucks worrying of the value is going up or down. Looked sweet, but would a lot sweeter if cheaper.
tomd81Funaro also makes the trucks and these are roller bearings http://www.ebay.com/itm/Funaro-F-C-T-1-T1-Battleship-Gondola-Freight-BUCKEYE-TRUCKS-Short-Wheelbase-/231299812543?pt=Model_RR_Trains&hash=item35da8b0cbf
Looking at the Greenways, they look to me like friction bearings, but it's not a good angle. They very well may be rollers.
Good thing about the Funaro's, besides being very affordable, is that plastic will be easier to mod to friction bearings.
tomd81I do not have access to any of the old ORER's, but did you look at the other reporting marks. USCX? That many of been when Carnegie Steel changed thier name or was acquired. It could have also been removed from interchange and just used as an interplant car. Wish that I new more.
I thought to check on that and no luck for USSteel under USCX at least therough the 1960 ORER I have. I seem to remember that USS had a practice of naming its RRs so they sounded like oridnary common carriers, which most were, but also primarily served their parent as a customer. Maybe someone who knows about steel RRs can offer more insight?
tomd81If you are interested in large flats or schnable cars, there are several thousand photos of them on my website http://www.garlic.com/~tomd TomD
Tom, yes, a great website. I'll only suggest providing a bit more info now that we've dug up a little more on the car's webpage, making reference to TRINITY and JUMBO. I searched a bunch of differernt ways and never came up in Google with your website on this, although I am familiar with it from other searches. Nowadays, since search seems to be optimized for selling stuff, rather than just finding something you need to know. I was rather surprized there's so little out there about it, beyond this discussion and one on Trainorders last year that apparently made this connection.
And since we don't know the disposition, a solicitation of more info on that or any other aspect of the car's life and to contact you with it might turn up that last bit of info -- what happened to the car after July 1945.
Consider these:
http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH90407
Wheelbase is 9'-6"
I've got an Overland UP crane with Buckeye trucks (roller bearing). The wheelbase of the truck is 11'.
Ed
tomd81 those are being made by Albrae, and they are roller bearings http://www.albraemodels.com/models/H402-1.htm TomD
Yep, those are the ones, I was afraid they were roller bearings.
7j43k Consider these: http://www.athearn.com/Products/Default.aspx?ProdID=ATH90407 Wheelbase is 9'-6" I've got an Overland UP crane with Buckeye trucks (roller bearing). The wheelbase of the truck is 11'. Ed
Ed,
OK, those might make acceptable stand-ins and the price is right. The pic is not very good. Anyone know if these will be friction or roller bearing?
Looks like price and roller bearings will exclude the OMI trucks.
The Athearn Buckeyes are plain bearing.
Excellent!
Thanks, Ed. At that price, I can overlook it if the wheelbase comes up a little short.
Anyone know what the wheelbase on the Athearn trucks happens to be?
See above, Mike..........9'-6"
Thanks, seen too many numbers, gone all googley-eyed.
Did a little more searching and found these.
Here are a bunch more photos of the car and the load.
http://nuclearmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/35100cgi/mweb.exe?request=keyword;keyword=flatcar;dtype=d
The photos are small, but they do verify that the car used is the Carnegie one.
Oooh, those are good.
It's easy to see where some things said over the years are somewhat different than what happened. This print's label, for instance:
http://nuclearmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/35100cgi/mweb.exe?request=image&hex=117920.JPG
It refers to the car as "specially constructed" -- which it was, except for some other purpose than moving JUMBO. It's a bit like the earlier discussion that it was "modified" -- yes, it was with the tie-downs that held JUMBO in pace. But that's really something that almost alsways happens with loads on a car like this.
The ones with the tarp is interesting, as I presume it came from Ohio dressed like that. This one also had probably the clearest redition of the Carnegie-Illinois name spelled out on the side of the frame.
http://nuclearmuseum.pastperfect-online.com/35100cgi/mweb.exe?request=image&hex=117936.JPG
Looks like we have another mystery, though -- gotta keep the Bear in his toes
How did they get that platform back up on the 64-wheel Rogers trailer?
With these pics, I started thinking, well, the buried the trailer beside the tracks to get it that low, but in a couple of shots, you can see the framework off the trailer and on the ground, with the trailer standing by. So it's not buried!
This is really great, because there was so little info out there and pretty much disconnected. The car and its load were really sideshows to the main event, but they were certainly big enough to attarct attention. It's a testimony to the effectiveness of keeping things secret in a world considerably less connected than ours is. On the other hand, even with the internet, search engines and other marvelous technology, it came down to a few of us to pull the story together so that at least the basic facts are correctly recorded for history so the whole thing doesn't just disappear down the Memory Hole. That would be an ironic end to anything that weighs over 250 tons fully loaded.
Now if we can just figure what did happen to it...
I wouldn't be totally shocked if we learned it still exists --- perhaps buried at Pope.
Tom (ACY)
I rather doubt they ditched it. The car wasn't contaminated or obsolete. It certainly was a national asset.
again!!!! tomd81, now that I’ve had time to have a closer look, thanks for the effort you’ve put into your informative site.
Cheers, the Bear.
Mike-
First, the Pope Siding does not have three tracks. See Google satellite map HERE. The photograph in your post is from elsewhere. Second, one can follow the road created from the Pope Siding to the Trinity Site on the Google satellite images. Mostly a VERY straight line. Third, there is a RR bridge near San Marcial, New Mexico that might have been damaged by the weight as the train crossed from the west side to east side (Trinity Site side) of the Rio Grande. To avoid this possible peril the train probably came from the south through El Paso. Fourth, a Trinity Site EXHIBIT clearly relates the history of the rail car. Sad that so few of your readers have actually visited Trinity Site. All the speculation is so unnecessary. Finally, the fate (and history) of Jumbo is well documented. It is at Trinity Site (what's left of it, and left of Jumbo) to this day. See pictures on the QalaBist.com link. Hope this all helps.
Donald Clayton
Donald,
Thanks for the info, as it's useful.
My impression of the damaged bridge story was that it was near the factory that JUMBO was fabricated. But given it still seems more a rumor than real, certainly damage elsewhere could've been "transplanted" to neaer the factory. I still lean toward my original conclusion that no bridge was damaged, because the route of an extra heavy load of high priority and value would have been carefully evaluated. This is done with ordinary high/wide/heavy loads, so would seem to apply here.
I do agree that the route may have been circutous to avoid exactly such an incident.
Certainly would like to visit Trinity Site myself, but a grad student's budget has limits. But even for those with the resources needed to get to its relatively remote location from most of the US population -- yep, probably the reason it was chosen in the first place, dontcha know? -- it's not easy. It was only open two days a year. Due to budget cuts, it's now just one day a year, in the cooler month of April:
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/PAO/Trinity/Pages/HowtoGetThereDirectionstothesiteforthebiannualopenhouses.aspx
Given Bear has taken on a very exciting project, scratchbuilding this car http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/88/t/256674.aspx, I thought I'd revisit this thread and update it on a couple of points.
I noted earlier that a good pic of the car was available online at https://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597514026/in/set-72157624881000675/
I just couldn't get the idea out of my head that I'd seen the pic elsewhere. In the middle of a dissertation, figuring out where a bit of info you have came from can by frustrating. I managed to get that all sorted out and graduated last weekend.
Along the way, I re-encountered the pic, right there in my adviser's book which I cited earlier. It's on page 366. http://www.cambridge.org/us/academic/subjects/history/history-science-and-technology/critical-assembly-technical-history-los-alamos-during-oppenheimer-years-19431945
There's not much on the car or railroads for that matter, so don't buy the book for that. The Los Alamos pic I linked to is higher rez. However, if you want some insights into the scientific challenge of coming up with these "gadgets" the book is a fascinating read.
Dear Folks: I stumbled across this post and was amazed to discover the interest in the Pope, NM santa Fe siding.
Many years ago I constructed a model of the unloading of Jumbo for my HO scale railroad. The sand on the surface of the model actually came from the Pope site.
I tried to insert a picture that reflects Jumbo as it arrived and after it was loaded onto the 64-wheeled "trailer" for the trip across the desert, but I do not feel sure that it uploaded.
The pictures in your blog do indeed reflect the unloading at Pope, NM.
The PRR car was called the Queen Mary and ran on four 4 axle rigid trucks taken from scrapped T1 tenders. It had two center pieces that were interchangeable. One was depressed center and one was a well hole. The car still exists at the railroaders museum in Altoona PA. This car is definitely not the PRR car
Hello Bear. Thank you for your expeditious reply. I read the piece regarding making my photos available. I do not have the kind of site available to load them for viewing. Here is the deal. As a youth (I am 77 now) I spent my summers in Bingham, NM, about 35 miles from ground zero. Over the years I accumulated a lot of information regarding the sites, preparation, et cetera regarding the first A-bomb test. Later, it was natural to add it to my rairoad. I had a friend make two Jumbos to scale (1:87) and I put one on the trailer and one on the drop center car to show how it arrived. Anyway, my scene depicts the arrival and the beginning of the journey to ground zero. I see that there is a lot of interest in the drop-center car. I cannot help with that. My friend looked at the picture and did some other checking and constructed his own version. To me, it all looks like it might have been. If I had an e-mail address, I could send some pictures to another site member who could present them to the forum.
I am not an expert and it appears that you all have a few on board. I do hope my efforts will pass muster.
Robert
Congrats to Bear on building a truly magnificent model!
It's quite an inspiration to see this thread result in this beautiful model. Railroad history is often its own reward, but here the outcome takes more concrete form. I hope Bear's example gets someone else to sit down and start on buidling that special model based on a desire for something unique. It may not be easy, but it's not so hard as many think if one takes pleasure in creating something few others have done and studiously applies ones efforts to a project.
While it is quite a handsome car, it also runs well, too. This also speaks to the quality of Bear's work, as you can see for yourself how close the clearances are on top the span bolster.