|
Post by jbilbrey on Dec 23, 2014 14:00:53 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 23, 2014 20:40:41 GMT -8
James, Thanks for the links.
The reason this car appears to be occurred to me reading through this again. While it was built to carry heavy tanks, the whole US heavy tank program guttered out. There was some concern about Soviet heavy tanks, but improving anti-tank weapons and the relative lack of mobility of heavy tanks caused the Army to throw it's lot in with the M-48 and later M-60. While the Marines took a couple of hundred (if you armor arrives by ship, you can afford the extra weight I guess) but the Army only bought 80 of the M-103 -- and didn't move them around enough to go with anything but the single DC flat, basically a prototype for what turned out to be an wholly unnecessary car.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 23, 2014 21:52:44 GMT -8
Mike,
I'll have to disagree with your premise.
I do not see that the depressed center flat was built to carry only heavy tanks. The Army had over 600 flats that could do that.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 24, 2014 2:05:42 GMT -8
Mike, I'll have to disagree with your premise. I do not see that the depressed center flat was built to carry only heavy tanks. The Army had over 600 flats that could do that. Ed Ed, The pieces of the story are all here in this thread. The timing is right, as the prototype that became the M103 was produced in 1953, this flat in 1954. The thing weighed 65 tons, 15 more than the M-48 that eventually became the standard US Army tank. The M-48 was known as a main battle tank, not a heavy tank, even though it was really heavy (Army terminology can be strange that way.) I also suspect that the depressed center came about as much to aid with clearance in overseas duty as it was a design to deal with the extra weight. So I strongly suspect that the intended use of this flat was specifically to provide the means to transport these heaviest of all Army tanks. Certainly, the Army had other cars that were suitable in many ways, just that they felt it needed its own dedicated flat design to meet the Army's needs. Then those needs changed. The M-103 was concentrated into one unit in Germany. It pretty much stayed where it needed to be until they were retired in the early 60s. Thus, only the one example of this car was produced.
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 24, 2014 2:14:44 GMT -8
SNIP...I have a book dealing with US Armor that has a photo of USA 499510, which probably dates back to the early/mid 1950's [it's carrying a T43 Heavy Tank, later standardized as the M103 Heavy Tank]. The caption states, "A T43 Heavy Tank mounted on its special low bed railway transport car." SNIP James Bilbrey LaVergne, TN Just quoting this as it's what jumped out at me to conclude the car was developed specifically to transport the T43/M103 when I reread the thread earlier. Yes, the Magor 100 ton flat could've done the job, but I suspect a M103 load would've been outside the loading gauge in Europe. Thus the need for the DC in order to clear bridges and tunnels, something implicitly recognized in the justificastion. Since the Army says that's what it's for on a pic of the car and tank together, in the absence of better info, I'll default to them on the intended use of the car.
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Dec 25, 2014 1:27:52 GMT -8
Resurrecting an old thread, I stumbled across couple more photos of the prototype flatcar on Fallen Flags. James, what section are these photos listed under? I couldn't find them in U.S. Government section, and the "acfx" folder listing in the URL seems odd. I was curious if it listed the photo location also. Just quoting this as it's what jumped out at me to conclude the car was developed specifically to transport the T43/M103 when I reread the thread earlier. Yes, the Magor 100 ton flat could've done the job, but I suspect a M103 load would've been outside the loading gauge in Europe. Thus the need for the DC in order to clear bridges and tunnels, something implicitly recognized in the justificastion. Since the Army says that's what it's for on a pic of the car and tank together, in the absence of better info, I'll default to them on the intended use of the car. Mike, while I agree that it appears the flat car was designed to carry the T43/M103, it seems unlikely that they would have intended for the flat to be used it Europe. It would be a challenging to adapt the car for use on the narrower European gauge (necessitating modified, narrower trucks), combined with shipping the cars to Europe. They would have had to either commit to building a fleet of cars specifically for dedicated use in Europe, or they would have had to plan to ship them over from the U.S. with the replacement trucks and the tanks that were deploying to reinforce U.S. forces in Europe during a rise in Cold War tensions. That kind of deployment planning was pretty routine for fighting vehicles, but adding rail cars would have been a big logistics task. From everything I've heard and read about our logistics operations in Europe (and Germany in particular), we've always made use of the indigenous rail infrastructure and rolling stock to move our vehicles. Here are some photos I found of tanks on German flat cars - this is a collection of DoD images from an exercise at Grafenwoehr in Germany: www.dvidshub.net/image/1317726/combined-resolve-ii-grafenwoehr-germany#.VJvXdsAKANote that the tanks are side-loaded onto the vehicles rather than loading circus-style like we do at military bases and ports in the U.S. Using a depressed center flat car would have required special platforms that were the right height for the flat, or some kind of heavy-duty ramp that could be moved into place alongside the car. Lifting them off with a crane is problematic because of the German catenary. Definitely an interesting topic! Dave
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 25, 2014 6:59:57 GMT -8
Dave, Good points and will respond to them at greater length later. I think the car as a prototype was set-up to run in North America, but was adaptable for overseas use. Loading gauge was probably not an issue with width, since I don't think it was substantially wider than other tanks. Track gauge is the same in Europe as here, so trucks weren't an issue, only if going to Moscow... would things have to be regauged to 5'. It was the height on a suitable car that caused the need for the drop center IMO. As you say, that caternary is close. I'm not expert on USAREUR, but was an AF brat who lived in Germany so passing familiar with the situation with armor there. More to this point, my research focuses on the Ike and JFK era, so have some background on how this car failed to make the grade in terms of the shifting strategies of the early Cold War. Enjoy Christmas, everyone, will be back online later for ,more
|
|
|
Post by jbilbrey on Dec 25, 2014 7:24:55 GMT -8
Resurrecting an old thread, I stumbled across couple more photos of the prototype flatcar on Fallen Flags. James, what section are these photos listed under? I couldn't find them in U.S. Government section, and the "acfx" folder listing in the URL seems odd. I was curious if it listed the photo location also. Dave Dave, I found the photos in the ACF Builder Photos section of Fallen Flags: ACF Historical Builder PhotosThey are "hidden"; you have to go under "Freight Cars - Misc & Private Owner" and then under "Shippers Car Line Division (ACF)". No info was given on the location in which the photos were taken. James Bilbrey LaVergne, TN
|
|
|
Post by drolsen on Dec 25, 2014 8:02:53 GMT -8
Track gauge is the same in Europe as here, so trucks weren't an issue, only if going to Moscow... would things have to be regauged to 5'. Aha, thanks - sorry, I was mixed up from thinking about the Japanese gauge recently. I'm definitely interested in hearing more when you have a chance. On a semi-related note, if you haven't seen it, I got an advanced peek at Bernard Kempinski's new book, Model Railroads Go to War - I think it's a great resource for someone who's interested in military modeling and model railroading: www.amazon.com/Model-Railroads-Layout-Design-Planning/dp/0890249539Dave
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 25, 2014 13:29:40 GMT -8
Depressed center car USA 499510 (currently under discussion)--a very interesting car number!!!
At the time, the Army had listed in the ORER only cars with 5 or fewer digits. All of the flats were 38xxx, 39xxx, 70xxx, 71xxx. No cars anywhere near 499510. I'm not saying the Army didn't have this car, though it's not listed. I am only remarking on the curious choice of car number.
New York Central put its heavy duty flatcars in the 499xxx range. I am aware of no other railroad that did that at the time. The July 1956 ORER NYC listing shows a number series of 499300-499599. The car lengths are about the same as 499510, but they are all listed as flat decks. Five even have bulkheads. There are 288 cars in this series out of a possible 300--12 vacant numbers. A person could ask the question whether NYC 499510 was one of those vacant numbers.
Yessir, a curious choice of number for an organization not noted for whimsy.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 25, 2014 21:01:51 GMT -8
Here's my take on developments with the heavy tank and possibly this car, 499510. Note that this is a working theory, which may or may not be able to be confirmed by primary source documents. The Army wanted a considerable expansion in the wake of Korea and Soviet acquisition of nuclear weapons. Eisenhower's election eventually put the brakes on expanding conventional forces. Ike saw this as just too expensive in terms of hardware and likely politically untenable in terms of the draft call-ups needed to meet the USSR toe-to-toe to slug it out. This resulted in what was known as the New Look. The New Look saw Ike pushing for an expansion of nuclear forces to out-match Soviet numerical superiority in manpower and tanks. The theory was that nukes would be cheaper than what it would take to build-up conventional forces. In addition to that change, Ike also wanted the forces the Army did have to be reorganized into what was known as the Pentomic Army, so named because units would be grouped in sets of 5. The number is really less important than the goal, which was to make Army units much more maneuverable on the battlefield in order to avoid becoming easy targets for Soviet nukes. We also know that prior to this, the Army was still thinking in terms of heavy use of RRs overseas, just as they had for most of the previous century. The USA 3000 and 4700N locomotives that tested on the Rio Grande narrowgauge were examples of such equipment, among over 400 locomotives ordered during the Korean conflict. These didn't really start arriving until 1953, when I suspect Ike probably was having a cow over what he considered wasteful defense spending. A lot of this stuff ended up stored or sold off. More here: utahrails.net/loconotes/rs4tc.phpAlso keep in mind that Ike was a proponent of mobility in general. IIRC, he led the first extended road march across the US prior to WWI, in which these new-fangled trucks were put through the paces as the Army was learnjing the ropes of something that could substitute for horses and mules. And we still remember Ike as the "Interstate president" as he applied what he's observed on the German autobahn system. So we have a glut of RR equipment that Ike considered largely obsolete in the nuclear age, as he sought to convert to a more mobile force structure. I suspect since 499510 was right in the middle of all that, it put the kibosh to whatever plans the Army may have had to produce the car in quantity. Moreover, the M103 heavy tank was wholly unsuitable for the increased mobility Ike wanted. Its powertrain was very weak and suffered from breakdowns. The Army did deploy them to Germany, but to where they were needed in case the balloon went up. There was little need to move them by rail once there -- and Ike was sure not gonna sign off on a bunch of what he felt was an obsolete, relatively immobile system. Thus, the on-off nature of 499510. While the Army still had plenty of heavy stuff to haul around, there wasn't much other call for such a car, so I doubt it fit plans for anything other than the heavy tank. So I don't have a document that sets this out, but the pieces are all there to make this the best explanations for both why it was originally produced and why it was a one-off. The caption that James quoted doesn't absolutely seal this. The Army has been known to play fast and loose with captions. But I suspect it's accurate in this case given the context. It would be interesting to find what, if any records still exist to confirm it.
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Dec 25, 2014 21:44:59 GMT -8
Mike,
I think it's important to separate out Army operations in the US and Army operations elsewhere.
I think it possible that 499510 was envisioned as a prototype for rail transportation of M-103's (and other armor, according to me) in Europe. And I think that a lot of what you are talking about is Europe. I will throw in the possibility that someone suggested that there would be no need for rail transport of US armor (M-103 or otherwise) in Europe IF there was a war, because the rails would be destroyed. Those folks would therefore have advocated for motor transport of armor. I wonder if the M-103 could be carried that way. I also wonder how the M-103's were transported in Europe. There were 72 M-103's in Europe. There were apparently NO versions of 499510. So a person could ask how were they transported. They were, obviously, transported. Or they stayed on the docks. And looked fierce.
So, the above is the Europe discussion.
Now, the US discussion.
The M-103 could easily be transported by the many heavy duty flats the army had. Those flats, incidentally, never left the US. I think. There was over 600 of them, so transporting the M-103 was a piddling job for them. IF 499510 was not a prototype for European transport (and it was likely never used as such), could it have actually been designed for use in the US? I wonder if it was used for transport of the M-103 inside the US where clearances were limited. There was, apparently, only one of these cars. That leads me to believe that its use was not envisioned for moving quantities of heavy tanks, but only one of them. At a time. Say, for manufacturing or delivery purposes. I really do wonder if this car was only built/acquired for the manufacture of the M-103. And not for the deployment of same. Note that our only photos of 499510 are in the US.
As I think I implied, the numbering of this car could be informative.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by mlehman on Dec 25, 2014 22:30:15 GMT -8
Ed, Yeah, if I didn't make it clear, the discussion applied to Europe, as that's the only place the Army deployed M103s other than for training in the US. AFAIK, they were all forward deployed, as was most of the force structure there. Not much land to trade for time to bring up more forces. The whole plan was to stop them short of the Rhein, including using nuclear landmines to take out or block bridges and tunnels. If that wasn't possible then defending the Rhein was the backstop. Used to think about this as a kid living on the east side of the Rhein...
I doubt there was much transport over the road of these in Europe, although the Army certainly had the capability to move M-48 and M-60. I'm not sure if those tank transporters were up to the 65 ton M-13 or not. Even into the 70s and 80s, even relatively short distances for training at Graf, etc usually involved rail transport for armor.
In Germany, the M-103 was forward deployed in the Fulda Gap region and at Aschaffenberg. How did the get there? I suspect by heavy-duty flat, as it was within the capacity of equipment there. It wasn't like they needed the 499510, it was more a luxury they found they could do without when the president said no more.
I see what you're saying about the US side of things. As you've noted, there was plenty of capacity with existing rolling stock and much more flexibility with clearance. I suspect the M-103 was fine on most if not all of the US-side six-axle flats. Also, the 499510 didn't enter service until 1954, while production of the M-103 (actually, it was designated as the T-43E1 in the beginning and not the M-103 until later modified enough to be acceptable for service) began in 1953, extending into 1954. That would suggest to me that it wasn't developed for the purpose of getting them out of the factory. Given turnaround times for rail cars, It would've taken several years to move them all one at a time, too. If that had been the purpose, I suspect the Army would've ordered more than one to account for bad order or other disablement, even if it was just a handful. Just one makes little sense other than as a prototype.
As for 499510 never making it overseas, there's a pretty lengthy list of such things in both world wars, particularly for items that could be tested here under near-identical conditions. The only thing really different about any European service railcar would be the restricted loading gauge and the couplers -- and Euro-spec couplers could be tested at Ft. Eustis.
|
|
|
Post by daveowens on Mar 5, 2017 22:00:59 GMT -8
I know this thread is old, but it has lots of good information. One bit of information I've tried to learn is when the various military flats were relettered for DODX. Anyone have any idea?
Thanks, Dave Owens
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Mar 5, 2017 22:20:37 GMT -8
About 1965-66.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Nov 30, 2021 5:13:15 GMT -8
let me restart this topic, since I recently received one of the Bachmann cars (black, undec, no load) as a gift.
my question is: what can I do with it for the time period 1965-1985 ? I mostly model 1969, but if I can use for some later time, that would be ok, too
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 30, 2021 8:27:57 GMT -8
I recommend lowering the car body down--it's too high above the trucks. And, of course, redoing the coupler boxes, as appropriate.
You might also need to add weight.
It's not an accurate car for the US, at least until someone finds a photo of the one known car after the military sold it off. If they did.
You could probably letter it for any railroad you choose. PC/Conrail wouldn't be a bad choice. Or even old Pennsy.
It was a fairly late car, so it would likely have lingered for awhile.
Ed
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Nov 30, 2021 9:04:09 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by edwardsutorik on Nov 30, 2021 9:17:38 GMT -8
On consideration, I think I'd letter mine for a fictitious private owner--someone who was ahead of their time in leasing out heavy duty flats--a pre-Kasgro.
I could then paint it a flashy color, and letter it with any decals I wanted--just get the capy right!!!
Oh, yeah. I think I'd most likely slather the deck with bondo, and turn it into a welded steel deck.
I AM curious what happened to these two cars (USAX 499510-499511)!!!!
Ed
|
|
|
Post by jonklein611 on Nov 30, 2021 9:51:56 GMT -8
On consideration, I think I'd letter mine for a fictitious private owner--someone who was ahead of their time in leasing out heavy duty flats--a pre-Kasgro. I could then paint it a flashy color, and letter it with any decals I wanted--just get the capy right!!! Oh, yeah. I think I'd most likely slather the deck with bondo, and turn it into a welded steel deck. I AM curious what happened to these two cars (USAX 499510-499511)!!!! Ed Bonus points if you use a witty John Armstrong type name.
|
|
|
Post by stevewagner on Nov 30, 2021 16:34:38 GMT -8
See articles by Rudy Slovacek in the Hub Division's Headlight magazine, Vol. 37 Nos. 2 and 3 and Vol. 38 No. 1, available for viewing free online, discussing what he did with Bachmann depressed center flatcars to make very good stand-ins for the Delaware & Hudson's only depressed center flatcar in as built black and as repainted bright red paint schemes.
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Dec 1, 2021 7:28:51 GMT -8
See articles by Rudy Slovacek in the Hub Division's Headlight magazine, Vol. 37 Nos. 2 and 3 and Vol. 38 No. 1, available for viewing free online, discussing what he did with Bachmann depressed center flatcars to make very good stand-ins for the Delaware & Hudson's only depressed center flatcar in as built black and as repainted bright red paint schemes. Steve, that would be on this page, right ? www.hubdiv.org/headlight.htmlI have found a similar car to D&H 16159...ATSF 90000. There are some pics of it in the SFRMHS flat car book and also two on my hard drive...only problem, the model is 5' shorter (52' vs 57'). Hmmm... www.rr-fallenflags.org/atsf/atsf090000aga.jpgSo, I might just follow Rudys example and do ATSF 9000x. I did not find a lot of other FD cars w 6 axles anyway...plenty of 4, 8 or more, though
|
|
|
Post by schroed2 on Dec 3, 2021 0:28:56 GMT -8
to continue this quest:
Erie had quite a few FD cars w 6 axles, including some with 52' length, that lasted until CR...
so I think I will modify the Bachmann car for an Erie look (steel desk etc. not sure about the traingular side reinforcements yet) and use the Erie flat car decals made by Prime Mover Decals (order placed already)
|
|
|
Post by fishbelly on Dec 5, 2021 19:17:40 GMT -8
I have one of the Bachmann depressed center flats. I was looking at lowering the car, but you have to cut the inboard caliper off in order to do it. The AHM car looks better than the Bachmann car. The trucks look more robust even though they do not have the outside calipers. They still look better. So I picked up an AHM version with the idea of building the model with the M60A1 tank on it. Now I have an Italeri 1/72nd scale M60A1 and it is quite a nice model. After doing the math though. It is a 0.900" longer than it should be for HO scale. So I bought one of the Roco Mini Tanks M60A1. It will be OK and a fun project.
|
|