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:
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 o
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.
Those drawings are interesting - and since the New Haven used the CGW ‘patented’ TOFC tie-down system, those drawings must be showing that method (I couldn’t find any patent numbers on the drawings, too bad, could have checked the original patents on File with the USPO). So this method seems to be basically jack the trailer completely off the deck (wheels and landing gear), and chain everything down so it doesn’t shift - the Nickle plate method was jack the landing gear (trailer nose) up off the deck, leave the trailer wheels on the deck chocked (so the trailer suspension is used to support the trailer in transit) and of course chain everything down so it doesn’t shift. And yet just a few years later, the method would be lock the trailer king-pin in a 5th wheel (ACF-style) hitch, leave the trailer wheels on the deck, don’t bother chaining things down (maybe the flat-car’s deck rub-rails helped secure the trailer somewhat from shifting laterally?) - thus positioning the trailer as it would be traveling on the road (except here the trailer is stationary on the deck, and the road is moving).
I wonder if in the TOFC ‘transition’ years there were more unbalanced trailers tipping off ACF hitch flat-cars than with the jack/chain tie-down method flat-cars (on a percentage basis of course - there probably was a lot more TOFC traffic secured using the hitch rather than jack/chain by 1960).
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.
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
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).
And since the title of this thread is Piggyback flat cars (and not just ACF hitches), we can ping-pong to this on-line article about the GMD portager with pictures and background info.
What doomed this intially successful experiment in early spine TOFC apparently was the then CP’s Chief mechanical officer’s utter aversion to 4-wheel freight cars (obivously he wasn’t from the UK c1960), even though the concept worked well in testing/practice, and with other railroads staying w/ modified regular flats (Circus style loading) or NYC with it’s Flexi-van, the spine TOFC idea went on the back burner for a few decades.
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.
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 twomore similar images in that lot)
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.
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.
