One for the model railroaders

[Earl Marischal]

steve 

 

[David G.]

I heard that they used to ship automobiles in box cars but this is the first photo I've seen of it.

Thanks for sharing this.

David G.

[Jim B]

That's a cool photo.  Never heard of them shipping cars this was, but it makes sense, I guess.

[peteski]

Yes, automobiles (completed vehicles and parts) have been shipped by railroad since the first cars were produced.  Originally standard boxcars were used, then they used double-door boxcars for easier loading.  Then some automobile carrying boxcars had end doors added, so cars could be easier driven in and out.

 

Here is a car with end doors.

Many of the photos came from https://industrialscenery.blogspot.com/2016/03/carrying-automobiles-in-boxcars.html

Later, dedicated end-loaded multi-level auto racks were used. Originally they were open, but due to the vandalism, they were eventually fully enclosed. Those are still used today.

[Ace-Garageguy]

Though insanely inefficient compared to the double- and triple-stack stack railroad car-haulers we've become familiar with, it made sense to haul and deliver just a few cars, possibly special-order, to a small town that had a rail siding in the days before interstate highways. 

The practice went as far back as horse-and-buggy days, with special boxcars designed for the purpose.

According to my research, most of the double-door car-haulers were later put into service hauling automobile PARTS (like bare-steel body-panel stampings and frames that had to be protected from weather), as the extra-wide doors were convenient for forklift access.

   

 

I wonder if these end-loaded Vegas were shipped without oil in the sumps.

Somewhere on this site, I posted an old photo I found of bare-steel Studebaker body shells also loaded on-end in a battered open gondola with no weather protection at all.  

Edited August 9, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[peteski]

4 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

 

 

The Vert-a-pac was a seriously failed experiment.  All the gory details are described in https://www.motortrend.com/features/chevrolet-vega-vert-a-pac/

[TarheelRick]

23 minutes ago, peteski said:

The Vert-a-pac was a seriously failed experiment

The way I read the article the Vert-a-pac worked as designed.  The Vega was a seriously failed experiment, says the Ford Pinto owner.

[peteski]

10 minutes ago, TarheelRick said:

The way I read the article the Vert-a-pac worked as designed.  The Vega was a seriously failed experiment, says the Ford Pinto owner.

LOL! Well, it all depends on your viewpoint. Storing any car in vertical position, with all the fluids in it seems like a problem waiting to happen. Cars are designed to have their wheels on the ground.  But yes, even ignoring the Vert-a-pac, Vega was a failure, along with ***BOOM***, Ford Pintos.  I did read though that the exploding Pinto issue was somewhat exaggerated.  Many cars from the mid-70s were crappy rusting piles of doo-doo.

Edited August 9, 2024 by peteski

[TarheelRick]

1 minute ago, peteski said:

Many cars from the mid-70s were crappy rusting piles of doo-doo.

Used to be a thing to do on a no-date Saturday afternoon - "sit around watching the grass grow and listening to the car rust."

[Mark]

17 minutes ago, peteski said:

LOL! Well, it all depends on your viewpoint. Storing any car in vertical position, with all the fluids in it seems like a problem waiting to happen. Cars are designed to have their wheels on the ground.  But yes, even ignoring the Vert-a-pac, Vega was a failure, along with ***BOOM***, Ford Pintos.  I did read though that the exploding Pinto issue was somewhat exaggerated.  Many cars from the mid-70s were crappy rusting piles of doo-doo.

The Gremlin, which was later restyled into the Spirit, outlasted both the Vega and Pinto.  So much for AMC not being as good as the Big Three.

[Ace-Garageguy]

44 minutes ago, peteski said:

...Vega was a failure, along with ***BOOM***, Ford Pintos.  I did read though that the exploding Pinto issue was somewhat exaggerated...

 

The "exploding Pinto" was insanely exaggerated by a fear-mongering hysterical media, just as the "Unsafe at any Speed" Corvair was. The '65-'69 Corvair was the best-handling stock vehicle America produced up to that time.

I've owned and lived with several flavors of both Vegas and Pintos (as well as every flavor of Corvair).

The Vegas were, without exception, rather poor cars, even though I liked them in general...mostly for their looks. They were pretty little cars, though seriously flawed in many ways most people never seem to rebleat.

The Pintos, on the other hand, were pretty much indestructible...assuming you didn't stop in front of an oncoming semi on the interstate.

My last two pintos were a 2.3 slushbox big-bumper wagon, a heavy dog but a very reliable dog, and a stripped 2.0 early car, essentially a race-car with Webers on the street. It ran like a scalded ape and took every bit of abuse I threw at it. Early two-liter cars were great, and if the world ever moves beyond "OMG THEY ALL BLOW UP!!!!!!!", maybe they'll be appreciated a little more.

https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-first-series-pinto-1971-72-the-fastest-pinto-ever-built/

My first Pinto was a very early 1600 car with front disc brakes, and its performance and handling reminded me of an MGB that didn't leak in the rain, not fast, but fun, and as simple and reliable as a brick.

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[Dave Van]

I am planning on building about 6 of these 'Auto Loader' cars for my 50's era O3r layou.

Lionel did one but it was shortened and held 4 cars.......

 

[Ace-Garageguy]

Early '30s Studebaker bodies going on a nice little train trip...

https://monon.org/mws/tws/studebaker.html

[Mark]

The rear-end collision exploding fuel tanks on Pintos were a thing.  The people responsible did figure it out, and had the fix figured out too.  But some genius weighed the cost of the fix against the cost of the wrongful death and injury claims, and thought it would be cheaper to pay the latter than the former.  Once a jury saw that information, that's where Ford got penalized for thinking that way.  

The Vega was actually a decent car.  Nice ride, etc.  The rust problems on top of the engine problems did it in.  GM should have just stuck the Nova four in there, then they'd only have had to deal with the rust problem.

Shipping by rail did weigh into some product decisions.  I read somewhere that Lee Iacocca shortened the overhang on a car by a couple of inches, to fit four more of them onto each rail car.  In the Thirties, Chevrolet fenders were designed to stack tightly together, like ice cream cones in a box.  (Look at the 1937 for example.)  Some other companies' fenders didn't stack that way, meaning far fewer of them fit in a boxcar.

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 hour ago, Mark said:

The rear-end collision exploding fuel tanks on Pintos were a thing. 

Nobody ever said the incidents weren't real, but they only occurred in extreme situations where the little cars were hit by something larger and heavier, and that might have seriously injured or killed the occupants of the Pintos anyway. 27 deaths resulting from Pinto tanks rupturing after severe hits are recorded by RELIABLE sources...out of 3 million Pintos sold. Hardly a deathtrap.

In FACT, the Pinto was no more fire-prone than contemporary imported vehicles of the same approximate size and layout, but rebleaters generally have no use for the truth. The real numbers are available for anyone to find on his own.

I've seen "expert" articles on the Pinto that are sheer ignorant gibberish, some even claiming "the aluminum chassis would crush like a beer can". Aluminum? Really? Nothing like responsible, informed, fact-based journalism.

There was a protrusion on the rear axle that could punch a hole in the tank in a 20-mph or higher rear-ender, but the cars simply didn't go exploding for no reason as the rebleaters like to insist. The proposed fixes included a plastic "shield", a steel tank reinforcement, and redesigning the rear axle housing. Any of these, none more costly than $10 per vehicle, would probably have solved the problem before it occurred, and SHOULD have been done. But Ford was exonerated of criminal responsibility, and many of the FACTS surrounding the whole mess are quite interesting, and make for some engaging reading on engineering ethics.

https://www.pdhengineer.com/catalog/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=2283

https://www.wardsauto.com/ford/my-somewhat-begrudging-apology-to-ford-pinto

1 hour ago, Mark said:

The Vega was actually a decent car.  Nice ride, etc.  The rust problems on top of the engine problems did it in.  GM should have just stuck the Nova four in there, then they'd only have had to deal with the rust problem.

They were nice little cars when they were new. But the aluminum block impregnated with silicon for wear-resistance (instead of simply using iron or steel liners like much of the industry had been doing successfully for decades), and the cast-iron head necessitated by the lack of rigidity of the poorly-designed block, combined into a bass-ackward reinvention of the wheel that doomed the car from the get-go.

An iron block of the same basic design, and an aluminum head of the same basic design...standard practice in Euro engines of the day...and the engines would still have been running strong when the bodies had been reduced to rusty dust.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy

[Dave Van]

When we got married my wife drove a 74 Vega. I had worked on it a number of times as 'boyfriend' so when we got married we sold it for a house down payment.....a GREAT deal in hindsight!! 

Vega's issues were to many off the shelf GM parts in a really small car. The steering box was standard full size GM box.......heavy and vague for a sub-compact.  And some of the design work in order to make the car work in the 'Vert-a-pack' rail car made it hard to work on. 

My exact memory fails me (50 years ago) but in order to replace the fuel pump, @ 30K miles, I had to take apart the dash.....why I can't recall. As soon as we sold it I forgot everything I had learned.  

To be fair I had a Pinto wagon hand me down from Dad. 2.3  4 speed with radio. That was a much better driving car. Rust did it in. 

[Ace-Garageguy]

10 minutes ago, Dave Van said:

The steering box was standard full size GM box.......heavy and vague for a sub-compact...

I believe you have been misled, sir.

The Vega box was the Saginaw 140, significantly smaller and lighter than "standard" GM boxes, and for this reason, a hot-rodder favorite on light vehicles for decades.

[Rodent]

37 minutes ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

There was a protrusion on the rear axle that could punch a hole in the tank in a 20-mph or higher rear-ender, but the cars simply didn't go exploding for no reason as the rebleaters like to insist. The proposed fixes included a plastic "shield", a steel tank reinforcement, and redesigning the rear axle housing.

The fix also included either a redesigned filler pipe or a redesigned attachment point to the quarter panel (I forgot which). This was designed to make the filler detach from the quarter panel before detaching from the tank and spilling fuel.

[rattle can man]

what about the exploding/ burning Chevy pickups with the saddle tanks outside of the frame? NBC may have rigged their tests, but the story came from somewhere. 

[Dave Van]

1 hour ago, Ace-Garageguy said:

I believe you have been misled, sir.

The Vega box was the Saginaw 140, significantly smaller and lighter than "standard" GM boxes, and for this reason, a hot-rodder favorite on light vehicles for decades.

No dubt you are right.....my GM knolwdge is zero. I do know from working on and driving both a 74 Pinto and Vega equiped almost the same, the vega was a very hard to drive car compared to Pinto. When I worked on then the Pinto R&P worked better and was light. The Vega old tech 'Ball' steering looked huge and was very heavy feeling. Thx

Pretty sure that 140 box is on my 23 T hot rod.....still a big heavy box!! My 46 has a FORD R&P set up.....so EZ to compare! 

[Ace-Garageguy]

2 hours ago, Dave Van said:

...I do know from working on and driving both a 74 Pinto and Vega equiped almost the same, the vega was a very hard to drive car compared to Pinto. When I worked on then the Pinto R&P worked better and was light. The Vega old tech 'Ball' steering looked huge and was very heavy feeling...

Yup. Rack-and-pinion in the Pinto was definitely one of the things that made it fun to drive.

And for all the Pinto-bashing "experts", here's what Car & Driver had to say about the Pinto in 1971 after a long term roadtest:

“The Pinto is exceptionally satisfying, even amusing, as a city traffic car. It’s highly maneuverable, visibility is extremely good in every direction except toward the rear corners, and it has the sharp-edged, go-stop-turn feel of a sports car. With this in mind, there are two bargains on the Pinto’s option list: the 2.0-liter engine for $50, and the disc brakes, which will set you back $32. Without those two extras the Pinto is just another low-dollar transit capsule—with them it’s a real urban flogger’s car. The “big” engine is relatively smooth and quiet and very powerful. It also revs like a dentist’s drill. The 4-speed transmission which backs it up is right for the task with short, quick throws and a solid, stubby lever.”

A thorough and rigorous engineering analysis of the Vega, on the other hand, reveals a collection of engineered-in, cost-cutting, and process problems that led to the little car's well-deserved abysmal reputation. From the stupid-small radiator and the differential-expansion of the iron head and aluminum block that led to early head gasket failures, to production issues with the inner-body "anti rust" coating, it's almost as though every management decision was taken with the intent of mass-producing a lemon.

EDIT: All that negativity aside, a Vega could live a reasonably long life in the hands of a careful, knowledgeable owner, and do it while handling nicely with good ride quality, and returning pretty decent fuel mileage.

But it seems GM has historically overestimated its buyers, giving them things like water-injection on early turbocharged engines that, if allowed to run dry (because nobody ever actually reads owners' manuals), guaranteed engine detonation, and unusual tire pressure requirements in the first Corvairs (again covered in the manuals and totally ignored).

 

Edited August 9, 2024 by Ace-Garageguy
CLARITY and ACCURACY

[stitchdup]

6 hours ago, peteski said:

have those 36s had the front end and grille raked back?

[Ace-Garageguy]

1 minute ago, stitchdup said:

have those 36s had the front end and grille raked back?

Just distortion from the lens or the printing process.

[stavanzer]

7 hours ago, rattle can man said:

what about the exploding/ burning Chevy pickups with the saddle tanks outside of the frame? NBC may have rigged their tests, but the story came from somewhere. 

Yeah, from the mind of a NBC staffer, looking for viewers! All Trucks had issues with Gas Tanks burning when punctured in accidents. Ford were supposed to be worse, if I remember some of the research that was done when the NBC Story was debunked. GM was the designated punching bag that year.

[Rodent]

4 minutes ago, stavanzer said:

Yeah, from the mind of a NBC staffer, looking for viewers! All Trucks had issues with Gas Tanks burning when punctured in accidents. Ford were supposed to be worse, if I remember some of the research that was done when the NBC Story was debunked. GM was the designated punching bag that year.

Look at one of your squarebody models. The tank(s) were outside of the frame rails and were the "crash attenuators" in a t-bone crash. I am sure that more than a few caused fires when they ruptured, but I agree that explosions were probably fairly rare. I had a '77 SWB 4x4 for about 6 years during the OMG issgonnablowuppanic years, and I am still here ?