Type C/UP trucks

[Jim Courtney]

Michael, see posts at bottom of prior page re: truck wheel base length.

Hey Rick,

I do tend to exaggerate occasionally, but I just turned 69 a couple of days ago. This is the first time in this lifetime that someone with the CAD skill set has proposed producing the type C truck.

I didn't know that you did 3-D printing. I thought Labelle was all about wooden things . . .

[Rick Steele]

Hey, I have to upgrade parts somehow Jim.

I'm 68.

Rick

[John Greenly]

well, I think I can help some with the truck dimensions.    

There is significant perspective distortion in the photo of coal car 4637 and flat car 1049.   This can be a problem in photos done with the cameras used back then where the lens board may have been set not parallel to the film plane.  I can see why Ron Rudnick has puzzled over this, it's really a tough one.  In this case it makes the UP truck on the left look longer than it really is.  Unfotunately I can't see the entire wheels well enough to do a complete unraveling of this.  My best estimate is that the UP truck wheelbase is about 51-53", assuming 26" wheels.  The Litchfield truck definitely has smaller wheels, 24" (assuming the UP is 26"),  and wheelbase probably 48".   Michael, is this maybe why you found the Kaydee wheelsets to be too big for your Litchfield truck?  Did you mean the wheel diameter is too big?  I just measured one and it is 26" diameter.

The flanger photo is actually a difficult one.  The camera was fairly close to the subject, but above and to the left of a straight-on view.  You can measure the wheels and see that they are not round in this perspective, and use the measurements to determine the camera angle.  A first-order correction, based on 26" wheels, gives a wheelbase of no more than 52".    

But, Jim,  I'm baffled by your number.  What did you measure?  Forgetting about perspective correction and just measuring straight off the photo, using the smaller righthand wheel as the reference I get about 53" wheelbase, and using the bigger left wheel gives me 48" wheelbase.

The  photo Todd Hackett put up is actually somewhat useable, you can see half of each wheel from center out to the brake shoe, and the perspective is quite simple.  This gives about 52" wheelbase with 26" wheels assumed.  

So,  at present I think that 52" is the best estimate I can make for the UP truck wheelbase.  I'm confident that it's larger than 4 ft, really no less than 50", and I don't think it's as big as 54".  But I'd like to know how Jim measured for his result.  

Gotcha both beat, I'm 71.

John

[Jim Courtney]

But, Jim,  I'm baffled by your number.  What did you measure?

The better question is "how did I measure".

Obviously incorrectly. I measured directly from Grandt's book, the photo of flanger 013. I measured the left wheel vertically, and the wheel base from the center of the little chain rings atop each journal cover. Somehow my caliper produced a larger number for the wheel base this morning, than this evening.

I see now, that the left wheel is taller than wide. When remeasuring in the same plane as the journal lids, tonight, I get a wheel base to wheel diameter ratio of 1.87.  With 26" wheels, that comes to a wheel base of about 48 2/3".  Obviously I screwed up the first time around. Or maybe it was the calculator on my Chinese built iPhone.

Or it could be all the antihistamines I'm on for the tree pollen allergies. Glad you checked my work!!

So the best John Greenly estimate for the type C wheel base is 54 inches.

Just goes to show you, you don't want a doctor remodeling your kitchen. . .

[Al Pomeroy]

Rick,

 how's the form 3 treating you. I have a form 2. have heard there have been a lot of issues with the flexible tray. the good thing is that Formlabs still is providing Service and repair parts now two years later. I had a cartridge sensing issue and the are sending out the replacement parts n/c.

AL P.

[Robert McFarland]

DOESN'T SHAPEWAYS HAVE A PHONE NUMBER?

[John Greenly]

Jim,  thanks for your response,  I wanted to make sure that I wasn't overlooking something.  

But, please--  I did not say 54" is my best estimate the wheelbase!  I said I didn't think it was that long.

Your reply is a big help though, because I was overlooking something:  the uncropped version of the flanger 013 photo in  Grandt Vol. VIII.  Using that whole photo allows a much more accurate determination of the camera position, and hence the perspective correction needed.

With this I can say positively that the wheelbase of the truck in the flanger photo is not as long as 54".   I get 49.5"- 50", based on the 26" wheel.  The main uncertainty is actually in how I'm measuring the wheel diameter.  I checked this by doing exactly the same measurements and analysis on the photo of flanger 015 on the adjoining page (p.146).  I  also get 50" for this wheelbase, but certainly this is a standard 4' C&S archbar truck.  So my conclusion is that I'm overestimating the wheel diameter at the visible point of measurement, the outer, near edge of the tire.  Based on the 015 photo, this must be more like 25" than 26.   Is that correct given the taper of the tire profile? Maybe someone could comment on this.  Or it may just be that the outer edge is somewhat rounded off, so that what is visible is smaller in diameter than the actual tire surface.   So, my confidence last night that the wheelbase is no less than 50" was definitely based on this mistake in my measured wheel diameter.  

In any case, this leads me to correct the wheelbase of the UP truck on flanger 013,  to 48".  It's a four foot truck!  

How about my estimates last night from the other two photos that gave more like 52"?  First of all I think a similar correction based on the wheel diameter is needed, so that brings them down to 50" or so.  But both of those were poor estimates to begin with for the reasons I described.  I don't believe that either of these contradict the much more accurate measure from the flanger photo .  Unless of course there were actually differing versions of these C/UP trucks, but again, I don't think the evidence we have here supports such speculation.  

I'm convinced that Michael's 4' wheelbase version is just fine, unless another really good photo turns up to contradict it.

John

 

[Jim Courtney]

Robert,

I have never talked to Shapeways by phone. It's the new way of the world, never talking to a human to conduct business.

Here is there contact page for email questions: https://support.shapeways.com/hc/en-us/requests/new

They usually respond to questions or problems within 24 hours. I have never had a problem with them.

If you can't order prints by money order, contact me off site. Let me know what you want, I'll order it for you and you can send me the money order for reimbursement. I'll need your shipping address and phone number. I may be able to ship directly to your address, at worst, they will ship to me and I can forward the prints to you.

Hope this helps.

[Jim Courtney]

That's good to know John.

So Michael's 4 foot wheel base design is likely correct.

I played around with the Fairplay photo of the new UP boxcar. Compared with the 27 foot body, I get a truck wheel base of 46.6 inches, not correcting for perspective.




I, too, think 48 inches is correct. Even if off by an inch or so, the 4 foot design that Michael has come up with is excellent, and will be many orders of magnitude better than any other cobbled together approximation using available commercial parts.

[John Greenly]

That's great Jim.

I was thinking of rummaging around in the 27' boxcar photos.  But I think we can be entirely happy with Michael's 4' wheelbase design.

A question to Michael about wheelsets:   I suggested the Kaydee wheelsets for HOn3 based on comparisons with various other trucks I have.  The Kaydee wheels have the narrowest  (most nearly scale correct) tires of any. That'll reduce any need to make the truck width between journals wider to accommodate them.  Their flange OD is .342" or 29.8 scale inches.  I don't have the NMRA standards handy, but that's as small as any of the 26" wheels I have.  That's certainly an issue with HOn3, the flanges are too big.  Please let me know if there are clearance issues with your UP design.  I'd probably prefer a small indent in the transoms for flange clearance if needed (like the old Grandt 3'7" trucks), rather than increasing the wheelbase.  

many thanks,
John

[John Greenly]

a brief reply to Ron Rudnick-

By the way, are you still making your freight car plans available?  I'd love to have a set,  as I'm getting more and more interested in the inherited cars in the very first years of the C&S.

thanks,
John

[Michael York]

Let's see...I count 9 MCB 6" boards on that boxcar...so 9x5.25" = 47.25".  That would make it a 48" truck.  That's from the photo of the boxcar coupled to a gon with a longer wb truck.

For the Flat-Gon photo, they are the same length and have the exact same diameter wheels...I used the computer to determine this.  Crazy...but it corrected for the vanishing point and that's what I got!    My eyes disagree...

Anyone have a nice photo of a boxcar riding on Litchfield trucks handy?  If so, we can count the boards to verify it.

Speaking of scale, I noticed that my HOn3 Litchfield trucks were actually undersized which is why the wheelsets didn't fit.  I corrected this, added a 1" indent to the transoms for the flanges, and moved the brakes+hanger 1" away from the wheels.  This is due to the RP25 flanges being a scale 2" on an HOn3 wheelset.

[Jim Courtney]

Anyone have a nice photo of a boxcar riding on Litchfield trucks handy?


Sorry, this is all I got:




Bunch of people standing in the way though . . .

[Ron Rudnick]

Yes the lettering Guides are still available
Have 3 you might be interested in DSP&P / Colorado Central / and a combined UPD&G - DL&G which includes several Kansas Central and Utah & Northern cars.  Each #17.50 plus $2.50 for shipping.  Will do all three for a flat $50 which includes postage.  Your choice, plastic comb binding or 3-hole drilled
Ron Rudnick
2050 W. Dunlap Ave, D-34
Phoenix, Arizona 85021  

[Michael York]

I'm getting 48"...9 boards...again for this one.

[Phil Wiborg]

Hello:

I've been lurking here for years.  I am impressed with the depth
of knowledge displayed by the members of this forum.  A subject has
finally come up that I feel I have something to contribute to.

In 1981 I discovered a UP marked swing motion freight truck on
display under a wood passenger car by a Casino just West of
Boulder Dam.  Since I was planing to make some notes and measurements
of parts on the then on display "Eureka" at Henderson, NV, I was prepared
with pencil, paper, tape, and camera.

One of the trucks looked like one under discussion here.  It's castings had
"UP" lettering all over them.  I was sure I had found a South Park truck, or
at least, a UP truck like ones used on the South Park.  So I spent some time
generating some "field notes" of the truck.  I offer the notes to the group
for study and comment.

There are 3 drawings: the first two are my field notes:




The third is an  "after visit" drawing of the journal box and lid.  The journal
box is from the field notes; the lid is from the Pictorial Supplement, P.446.



I also share one poor photo.



Jim earlier observed that the circular opening was not centered
vertically between the side bars in the photo's
previously published here.  I didn't notice this at the time of
my visit, one way or the other; I think my photo is inconclusive.
The truck I visited did have a 4-spring cluster at each end
of the swing beam (poorly sketched in my notes), not the single
coil spring pictured and discussed earlier in this thread.

So, is this the truck under discussion, or is it perhaps a different,
"light" version?  It did have a 48" wheel base and 24" wheels.

Phil Wiborg

[John Greenly]

Michael, that's wonderful.  I was very frustrated with my conclusion about the  "gon-flat" photo.   Crazy as it looks to the eye, I'll bet the computer has got it right.  That makes everything consistent with other information.   Can you tell me what software you're using to do the correction?  I've been doing this by hand, and it's very laborious.  I didn't try to do it fully with that photo, just too complicated to straighten out all those curved lines.  

thanks!!
John

---and it sounds like the Kaydee wheelsets will work okay in your type C trucks by a similar strategy as the Litchfield, that's great.  

[John Greenly]

Phil-  Thank you!!!!

Excellent information here,  this could settle all questions for good.  Here's one quick observation after a first look-  the proportion of transom spacing to wheelbase is the same as the flanger truck photo we have been using, so I expect the sideframe will turn out to be the same, but the wheels of your truck are definitely smaller than the flanger truck wheels, probably consistent with the difference between 26" and 24" wheels.  

Lots to chew on here,

John

[Dave Eggleston]

Phil,




That car is the second one in this picture. IIRC, that car is NC boxcar 253, a boxcar built in 1874 by Thomas Carter (pre Carter Brothers) for the Monterey & Salinas Valley. It would've been riding an early Carter truck up to the line's scrapping in 1938 but lost its trucks at that time. The car was grounded and sat in Battle Mountain until spotted by a local Nevada collector of dubious background. He "collected" a lot of "abandoned" equipment and moved it to a ranch he had. This hoard of equipment moved around Nevada and at one point was made operational for a tourist scheme in the early 1950s.



The trucks it is sitting on, if also from the NC, could be 1881 UP for flatcars built new for the NC, placed under the car for this display--but those cars were all scrapped in 1938 before the collector showed up. I'm guessing they aren't NCRR and came from somewhere else. I'm not certain if any foundry records exist for the UP in the 1880s showing part numbers and consignment?

One thing about the Nevada Central. As early as 1881 equipment was transferred from it to a line in Utah by the UP. There is also a record of the NC using a U&N engine for a very short period in the mid-80s. But that's it: These swaps of equipment on this very remote (both from the UP and from pretty much the civilized world) appear to have been only done a couple of times.

Randy Hees of the RR museum in southern Nevada may more definitively comment on the provenance of these trucks.

[Michael York]

John:  Sketchup.  Match the photo and set two of the axes (and vanishing point) using two lines on each of those axes.   If everything is in-line, you only need to set one axis right on that line.

Great stuff, Phil!!!  Thank you!!!

I don’t think using smaller wheels is a big deal, as that’s mostly an adjustment to the brake rigging.  How many passenger car trucks started off with 30” paper wheels and later received 24” chilled cast iron?  I wouldn’t put too much stock in the wheels size used in MoW equipment or surviving equipment which could have mismatched components...but I do put enormous stock in every measured dimension!!!

I estimated the transom width at 4.5”...so 5” sounds great!  Similarly, I settled on 10” tall after considering 11”...so that dimension is comforting too!

P.S.: I emailed Randy a link to this thread and a some questions.   I tend to recall that he was involved in the rescue of the M&SV boxcar from Henderson.