PRR BM85 & BM85a Cars

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Bob,

Hi, yes I believe they were the B62 cars if my memory serves me correctly. The are offered in HO by Bethlehem Car Works.  http://www.ebay.com/itm/BCW-HO-Brass-kit-PRR-B62-Baggage-Express-432-/310607268438?pt=Model_RR_Trains&hash=item4851a2ca56. I have thought about getting a HO model to see what has to be done to make it in N. I believe the Bachmann Short Pass car trucks might suffice under this car.

Bryan,

I am well aware that the CCS car is not an exact replica. I has been set up to see how close it is to the correct model and how much work is required to take it that one step further or accept it as a foobie.  It is the same as the MTL RPO close enough for some but not close enough for others. I do not see any problem with modelling the last six years. It is part of the roads history. There have been enough locos produced with the numbers in the pre-merger font and size.

Josh

I have not seen any evidence to date that would indicate that RPOs were painted in FOM.

Mike,

I can accept that is what you are happy with but I am looking for a bit more and I look to share with others what I have been doing. I still have a way to go with my drawings. As I look at them now the windows seem to be sitting to low but look more correct on the model.

You can all blame it on Claus Schlund. He is the one who got me started on headend cars.

Regards

Al

[Bob Bufkin]

Gotta find my references but there were some mail and baggage cars painted in FOM.   The late steam era Broadway Limited cars were all painted FOM.

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Bob and Josh,

The photo in the fronts piece of the book Pennsylvania Railroad's Broadway Limited by Joe Welsh shows a streamlined K4 with the first car being a FOM BM70m. So there is some evidence of that happening.  I just checked with AMAZON.com to see if they were still available there and they are. Nearly fell off the chair. I think I paid $30.00 for mine about 9 month ago and they have them listed new at $661.00 and used at $229.00.
I was not able to find any listed on eBay.

Anyway Josh there is some evidence.

Regards

Al

[Bob Bufkin]

Al

I have that book and didn't realize it was going for that much money.  The rarest book I think i have is on the history of the Cumberland Valley Railroad.  You hardly ever see them come up anywhere.

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hi Bob,

You could have knocked me down with a feather when I saw this

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Pennsylvania+Railroad's+Broadway+Limited&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3APennsylvania+Railroad's+Broadway+Limited

No doubt they are out there. I have a book on the Great Northern that is long out of print and I know they were selling for $600.00 out here about 5 years ago and the I have a little hard back call Speed Limit 20 which is about a group of state owned 2'6" gauge lines in Victoria. I paid $25.00 and it is now up to $800 +.
Just like Rockin Horse Do Dos.

Oh well still waiting for my parcel to arrive. It has a bucket full in it as well as these two cars. Now to work out what train to run them in. There is not a lot written about them.

Regards

Al

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hi Folks,
Now back to the subject at hand. I received the two units from the US to-day in the mail and yes they are nice looking cars and for some they would suffice as a BM85 RPO but there are too many differences that I can see with a simple visual of the models.

I now have one car stripped down to the main basic components Roof, Body, Interior Detail and chassis.

I have stripped the detailing parts from the body which will be replaced later with my own etches.

In previous threads I pointed out the major floors in the model but after locating another photo of the other side I note that the two housings on the facing side are also replicated on the other side. I think they have something to do with the ventilation of the car.

In the next thread I will deal with finishing the drawings and start with the removal of the doors.

Regards

Al

[jmlaboda]

"Gotta find my references but there were some mail and baggage cars painted in FOM."

You have to remember that these cars were rebuilds that PRR did in the mid-60s, so, no... they never wore the FOM scheme when rebuilt.

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Jerry,

I found a photo of a BM70K behind a Streamlined K4 inside the fronnt cover of the Hard Cover Book on the Broadway Limited. I know hat these cars were converts but just at this point in time I cannot recall exactly what they were. I understand that to a lot of modellers they are just fine but I would like to just give one a belt around initially to see what I can come up with. If we do well from there I will review the other and number it for the BM85a

Regards

Al

[OldEastRR]

OK, are these prototypes rebuilds or brand-new lightweights made by ACF in 1946?

[jmlaboda]

You have to remember that these cars were rebuilds that PRR did in the mid-60s, so...

PRR 6596 - 6598 were rebuilt from baggage - dorm cars 6691 - 6694 while 6599 was rebuilt from Baggage - Bar lounge 6696.

[OldEastRR]

So they were originally built as LW baggage-dorms in 1946, then converted later.

[jmlaboda]

PRR 6596 - 6598

Oops... that should be 6595 - 6598 and, yes, they were former baggage - dorms, 6599 was the baggage - bar lounge.

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hi Jerry,
I was going through a book on Pennsy Baggage and Mail Cars this morning by Robert AQ. LILJESTRAND and David R. SWEETLAND and found the following information in a table and a photo of 6599. Info would show per the table that 6995 to 6997 were converted from BD85Rs, 6598 was converted from PB85R and 6599 was converted from PLB85R and coded BM85A while the rest were coded BM85 and all were transferred to PC. Conversion took place in 1964. 6591 and 6592 were both BM70m. It does not show any record of 6593 amd 6994. As this modelling is outside my time of Operation now I will finish the project and sell them off. This information is also backed up by the plans on Robs PRR Page. So per your last post It is interesting to note that in the table 6691 and 6691 are both BM70m, however there are photos 6691 and 6692 as BD85 and notes that 6691 to 6694 were BD85s. Too many numbers to cope with and too confusing. It would appear that these cars were given the numbers 6695 to 6698 while only two of the original numbers 6691/6692 were used to renumber BM70m.


Regards
Al

[jmlaboda]

6598 was converted from PB85R

But how could this be since all four cars 6595 - 6598 were built to the same plan and in the same order.  The info I presented is from STREAMLINER CARS VOLUME 3 ACF - Other Builders.  No mention of 6598 ever being rebuilt to PB85R before being rebuilt to the baggage - mail configuration...

ITEM 3073 4 Cars, Lot 2986, Ordered 1/46, Delivered 4/48.
(1) Built as: Baggage Dormitory.
(2) Baggage 60' Mail.
PRR (1) 6691, (2) 6596 in 1964, PC (2) 6596, AMT (2) 1804 in 1976; Retired 1977, Held.
PRR (1) 6692, (2) 6595 in 1964, PC (2) 6595, AMT (2) 1803 in 1976, Retired 1977, Held.
PRR (1) 6693, (2) 6597 in 1964, PC (2) 6597, AMT (2) 1805 in 1976, Retired 1977, Held.
PRR (1) 6694, (2) 6598 in 1965, PC (2) 6598, AMT (2) 1806 in 1976, Retired 1977, Held.

This same information (about 6691 - 6694 being BD85s) is shown in my copy of THE PENNSYLVANIA RAILROAD PASSENGER EQUIPMENT REGISTER 1954 published by PRR.

This information is also backed up by the plans on Robs PRR Page.

Rob shows nothing other than 70' cars for the PB-class... no PB85 is listed.  http://prr.railfan.net/diagrams/PRRdiagrams.html?sel=comb&sz=sm&fr=

[Alwyn Cutmore]

Hi Jerry,
 I cannot argue with you on these matters as I am too far away in Australia and have to rely on the library reference I have to hand. All my reference show what I said. It is interesting that the Baggage and Mail Cars Book does not give a build date for any of the original BM85/85a cars just when they were renumbered and reclassified. I do stand to be corrected on this matter as my reference make statements but I cannot follow up any further to confirm the info.

What does your note (2) Baggage 60' Mail infer. Does that mean that 60 ft of the car was used for mail.

As Professer Julius Som DeMiller said "Why is this so".

Regards

Al