# USAT Ore cars



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Got these cars and really like them as they came in my favorite road name Undec. The only problem is I did not like the excessive distance between the cars. So I took on the task of shorting up the distance.












Moved the cars closer together by 1 inch.




















Little work but I think it looks better. Later RJD


----------



## Sesh1975 (Aug 25, 2008)

I agree that a prototypical spacing looks soooo much better. Can you take more pics of what you did and maybe describe how you did it?


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

I am a little puzzled RJ. Those couplers look like Aristo more than what I have seen on USAT products. I am not sure whose hopper it is either. I know you mentioned getting some Aristo undecs so may that is what they are.

I am sure many will wish to know or copy your adaption.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Alan: The cars are USAT ore cars with Aristo tucks and couplers. These cars are very short. 

Sesh: I will post some pics on what I did to make them couple closer together. This is about as close as I can get them without going to a body mount which would reqiure more work than what it's worth. This was a cheap and easy fix. Later RJD


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the info. I saw those ore cars on the USAT web site - they do look small compared with other hoppers. I did think the trucks looked good.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Alan:

The cars are short. They were designed to carry iron ore in Northern Minnesota to the docks on Lake Superior. Iron ore is more than 2-3 times as heavy as coal ( I don't have my mineralogy books here at home to check the exact amount) , therefore the cars are significantly shorter than the standard hopper car. The iron ore was shipped from Duluth and other ports on Lake Superior to ports on Lake Erie (Toledo and Cleveland, Ohio). There other railroads would transfer the ore to the steel mills. The B&O was one of these railroads, they could only fill the standard hopper by about 1/3 rd of the normal level of coal. Unfortunately, USAT chose many railroad logos for their cars and missed the few that actually used these cars. My memory may be a little off, but of the railroads shown by USAT only the Great Northern actually used these cars. The major user of these cars was the Duluth Missabe and Iron Range, sadly missing from the cars available.


Chuck N


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

C&NW had many ore cars as they where located in the iron ore country and had big ore docks in upper Michigan. Mine are lettered for the C&NW as I bought the undecs and the C&NW had the black cars instead of the oxide red. Later RJD


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

These cars were used by a limited number of railroads on the north and south sides of Lake Superior. As I said earlier, the most of the cars by USAT are for railroads that never had these cars, and not for the few railroads that used these cars. The C&NW was one, unfortunately, it is missing from the USAT roster of available of railroads. 

LGB made similar cars, but they also made them for railroads that never had them. Had either of these manufacturers made the DM&IR I would have bought twenty of them, as I have a lot of fond memories of canoe trips in northern Minnesota with my late father. 


Chuck N


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Oops!!

I just went to the USAT site and they now have the DM&IR ore cars, no pictures yet. The last time I checked, they were not there.


Why did you switch out the USA trucks with metal wheels for the Aristo trucks with plastic wheel? Do the ore cars have a platform for KD couplers?


Chuck N


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I don't RJ changed the trucks, but he will respond. 

I have two of these cars, no coupler platform, and sadly, you would have to make a very thick and unsightly shim to get the coupler down low enough. I am discouraged since I wanted body mounts. But I also purchased Santa Fe ones, and have subsequently found out Santa Fe never had them... drat... 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks for the prototype info Chuck and RJ, I will look into the DM&I railroad.


Although there were iron ore hoppers in the UK, which were also small, they were in fact the same size, more or less, as our coal trucks up until around the 1960's. 


I lost interest in our railways after half of it was closed and dieselization took place. Fortunately the UK probably has the largest Heritage Steam run railways in the world - helped as well by being a small Country in size. Apart from my own Heritage line within 100 miles of here there are at least five standard gauge Heritage lines plus some miniature ones as well.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Chuck: I got rid of the USAT truck because I do not like the dummy look of the springs I like the real McCoy. The USAT metal wheels are used in the Aristo trucks and fit fine. Later RJD


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

RJ:

Thanks for the answer.

Alan and others interested in the Iron Ore cars:

These cars were designed and built to haul 70 tons of iron ore and are 24 feet in length. The three bay hoppers modeled by USAT were designed and built to handle about 70 tons of coal and are about 40 feet in length. 


Chuck N


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By aceinspp on 11/06/2008 8:43 AM
Chuck: The USAT metal wheels are used in the Aristo trucks and fit fine. Later RJD


That is what I have found particularly as often Aristo' s wheels were not available at the time |I needed them. Sadly the USAT wheels have gone up in price over here by almost 50%, so they are not as reasonable as they once were. You cannot beat trucks with working springs I feel even if they can fly through the air if not secured with cotton (or similar) when changing wheels.


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

The cars were short for two reasons: first, because of the density of the ore; second because they were essentially custom-designed to fit in the dump chutes for the lake barges that carried the ore to the furnaces. A long string of these cars could be parked in the holding chutes and dumped all at the same time. It was common for these cars to operate in sets of four, called "miniquads." The cars were permanently coupled together with a drawbar instead of a knuckle coupler, and the set moved as one car. 

Later, 

K


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Posted By Greg Elmassian on 11/05/2008 8:44 PM
I don't RJ changed the trucks, but he will respond. 

I have two of these cars, no coupler platform, and sadly, you would have to make a very thick and unsightly shim to get the coupler down low enough. I am discouraged since I wanted body mounts. 

Regards, Greg


OK, this confuses me. Kadee make three different "lifts" for the couplers with the lowest (low rise) being ~straight across (as opposed to mid-rise or high-raise). Are you saying that even the low-rise ones are still too high?


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Todd:

I think that the problem is that the cars are too high and you need a stepdown coupler rather than step up. Since I don't have the cars I can't measure the body height above the rail to see if that is correct.

Chuck N

PS: Kevin or somebody else in Colorado:

What type of cars were used to deliver the Iron Ore to the steel mills in Pueblo (CF&I). The Colorado and Wyoming Railroad was used for this transport. I really can't find anything but the name for the C&W. I think that a lot of the iron was mined in the Laramie Range in Wyoming and some may have come from the Orient Mine in the Sangre de Christo range. None of the books that I have on RRs in Colorado mention the iron ore transport. There is a lot of information on the movement of marble (limestone) from Monarch to the mills in Pueblo.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

If you look at the cars you can see how much needs to be added to make Kadee couplers work. It would sure look ugly to add that much of a shim to lower the coupler. Later RJD


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well lets see if I can give you the pics to show what I did to shorten up the couplers.










This is what the truck and coupler look like before mods.











I cut off .529 inches off the truck shank.











I removed .302 off of the coupler to move it in. Now you have to re drill the coupler and the truck sank. 











Here the coupler has been reattached to the truck in the new location.











Now you can see how the screw that holds the coupler in place is now under the axle. down side to this if one needs to change a coupler now you have to remove the wheel set to get to the screw to remove the coupler.










Not to good of pic but here is the train with all the cars modified. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Kevin 
that would save a person on Kadees. 
I have some gundersons on draw bars and pray they never detrail. but with those shot cars should be no problems.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

I'd prefer not to do the draw bar. The C&NW did not use them. Later RJD


----------



## jmill24 (Jan 11, 2008)

RJ, those ore cars look great with the Mallet and I do love those Mallets. I might have to get some for my GN Mallet. As always, great work..............Jim


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Jim. I thought 10 cars would make a nice train. Now that it's done I might get a few more cars as the train looks a little short now. Later RJD


----------



## paintjockey (Jan 3, 2008)

The P&C Dock in Conneaut Ohio recieves ore and the Bessemer used those lil buggers in the past as well. Even today I think the ore cars are only 40 footers they may be smaller. It's an awesome sight to watch the Bessemer's 6 SD units battle to get the loaded cars out of the valley to Meadville PA. They use 3 pullers and 3 pushers up i believe an almost constant 2% grade for like 20 miles. To top it off there isn't much straight track on the route as it follows the Conneaut creek winding and climbing through the valley.


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

That climb must have been might impressive in the days of steam, PJockey

Yes, RJ, more are called for - or maybe a smaller loco than the Mallet


----------



## eheading (Jan 5, 2008)

RJ, that train looked good to me. You just need a smaller engine pulling the ore cars, and loads for the cars now!

Ed


----------



## Terl (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By chuck n on 11/06/2008 2:58 PM
Todd:

I think that the problem is that the cars are too high and you need a stepdown coupler rather than step up. Since I don't have the cars I can't measure the body height above the rail to see if that is correct.

Chuck N

PS: Kevin or somebody else in Colorado:

What type of cars were used to deliver the Iron Ore to the steel mills in Pueblo (CF&I). The Colorado and Wyoming Railroad was used for this transport. I really can't find anything but the name for the C&W. I think that a lot of the iron was mined in the Laramie Range in Wyoming and some may have come from the Orient Mine in the Sangre de Christo range. None of the books that I have on RRs in Colorado mention the iron ore transport. There is a lot of information on the movement of marble (limestone) from Monarch to the mills in Pueblo. 




The standard gauge Colorado and Southern brought iron ore from Guernsey Wyoming to Pueblo Colorado in open gondolas, probably with drop bottoms. They often had to double head two 2-10-2 locomotives to get them over the hills. The steam shovel that was used to mine the ore in Wyoming is on display at the Colorado Mining Museum in Colorado Springs. It's all rusty but it is a real kick to see it operate on compressed air.

Terl


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Terl:

Thanks for the information on the transport of the ore for the Pueblo steel mills. I made a common mistake in thinking the the Colorado and Wyoming actually made it to Wyoming. I think that is was in fact a very short coal hauling RR in southern Colorado. 

The mistake I made was to assume the name actually meant something. I keep forgetting all the railroads out there that had names like " X Y & Pacific". They never made it to "Y" let alone the Pacific.


Chuck N


----------



## Gary Lantz (Feb 20, 2008)

Actually they are just made from the old Lionel tooling. When Lionel sold them they had smaller profile wheels and 1/32 scale trucks. The big USA truck puts the coupler way out infront of the car where the short Lionel coupler was a lot closer.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Working on making loads for the cars. Just another project to work on during the winter months. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Gary, just curious, not confrontive, how did you come by that info? Did you put one next to another, or was this published somewhere? 

Regards, Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg:

When these cars first came out there was mention in some of the threads here on MLS that these cars might have come from Lionel molds. 

I was I Charlie's shop last Saturday, thinking about buying some of these cars. The bodies were way above the trucks, I could see why body mounted couplers didn't work, which started this thread.


Chuck N


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Ahh, so not really confirmed. Got it. 

Yep, I was very disappointed that the body is so high, I want to body mount. I will get off my butt and find some prototype info and see if I can get the body down lower. It would seem that if these are a relatively accurate reproduction, that the excessive height is caused by the trucks or wheels or mounting of same. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Gary Lantz (Feb 20, 2008)

We sold our share of them in brown boxes. They are still around. There are some on evil bay now - item 300274128542 and 140282996091 and 140283217039. The last batch was about 2 yrs back SKU# 8-87214 Ontario Northland. Item number 330223980796 is the Ontario Northland version


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Some interesting prototype photos of ore cars...

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rsRRList.aspx?id=32

Gary


----------



## Gary Lantz (Feb 20, 2008)

The old MDC G scale ore cars are back available again as well. They are in PIKO boxes now. They also have the old MDC hopper back available in the new PIKO train sets.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Well, there seems to ba a lot of difference.










USAT drawing:









One thing is clear, the car is sitting almost 1" too high it seems... the prototype has the tops of the wheels "up inside" the frame rails...

Interesting... maybe there is hope if I can lower these babies!


(I have some of the MDC cars, the are truly 1:32, way too small for my 1:29 stuff!) 


Regards, Greg


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg:

Thanks for the pictures. I have always thought that the USAT ore cars didn't look quite right. Your pictures helped me discover what bothered me about the USAT cars.


1, They are too high.

2, The trucks are mounted too far in toward the center of the car, on the real cars the journal for the outside wheel set lines up with the end of the car. This causes a little less that half of the wheel to stick out beyond the end of the car.


3, Because of "2" the dump doors on the model are much shorter than the dump doors on the prototype. 


4, Because of "3" the angle of the base of the ore bin is not as steep in the model. I was always bothered by the amount of light that I could see through the end of the cars. The ore bin on the prototype is larger and there is less open space under the ends.

The bottom line is that I had wanted a string of these ore cars, but because of the problems that I see, I'll pass. Have you measured the MDC cars to determine that they are 1:32, or is that what it says on the box?


If they are 1:32, I'll probably have to pass on them also, as all my "standard gauge" engines and cars are 1:29.


Chuck N


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg,
Take a look at this car on Ebay. That brake wheel is very distinctive of a Lionel large scale car.

http://cgi.ebay.com/Lionel-new-8-87214-Ontario-Northland-Ore-car_W0QQitemZ330223980796QQihZ014QQcategoryZ19155QQssPageNameZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1638Q2em118Q2el1247


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Chuck, They are definitely 1:32, and you can tell by them sitting next to another car. Virtually all the MDC stuff was 1:32 and advertised as such. If I get off my lazy butt this weekend, I will shoot pictures of the two side by side.. 

Paul, I saw the picture, it's not big enough for me to make any conclusions. I will search the web, I'm sure I can find a large picture of Lionel ore cars. Funny, many of the Lionel large scale was 1:32, but many were larger. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Paul Burch (Jan 2, 2008)

The Lionel large scale line was all over the place. Ever take a look at the trucks on the diesels? Way too big for 1/32 but almost a perfect match for 1/29 even though the bodies were 1/32.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg:

Thanks for the 1:32 information on the ore cars.

Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think this picture will settle any controversy about the USAT being 1:29 or not.









The car on the left is a MDC 1:32 model. Notice the proper placement of the trucks, and the tops of the trucks are "inside" the frame rails?

I want to find some real prototype measurements (anyone?) to see if the USAT ore car can be made to look like the prototype.


Regards, Greg


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Try this site Greg for prototype dimensions. This hopper has a 100t capacity tho and not be what your after length wise etc but possibly help with the wheel to bolster height which may be standard
Gary


http://www.freightcaramerica.com/Ore-Hopper.htm
http://www.freightcaramerica.com/Ore-Hopper-Drawing.htm


----------



## Great Western (Jan 2, 2008)

It seems quite hard, to my eyes, to relate any of the pictures, model or 1:1 version, to each other.

The 1:1 GN car has a larger capacity than the USAT model and its sides are slab whereas the model has a taper at the top part of the car. The 1.32 MDC, whilst spartan, does seem to resemble the prototype somewhat in body shape more than the USAT one.


I did wonder if they are, in fact, the same thing: is the Colorado USAT model that of a special specification for a mineral line whereas the GN a slightly larger bodied version for a Class 1 railroad. I will be interested in the outcome of this enquiry.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg: 

Thanks for the pictures. The difference in size is really noticeable. 

Does anyone know how the LGB ore cars compare in size and appearance?



Chuck


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

The LGB cars seems to be almost the same size, although I do not remember them being as tall. 

It would be cool to get the MDC, the USAT, the Lionel, and the LGB in a lineup. 

I will at least take measurements so we can compare them if someone else can measure the Lionel and the LGB. Height from railhead and overall length (without couplers and brake wheel). 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

One of the reasons I did not buy the LGB is they are slightly larger. And a bit more in cost. later RJD


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Greg:


I have just made some measurements of three different pictures of ore cars. I measured a prototype in the site suggested by Gary Yarde, the USAT train site, and your latest picture showing the MDC and USAT cars. My basic conclusion is that the USAT car is either too short, or too high. It doesn't match up well with the other two cars. I have scaled up all of the measurements to real feet. I assumed that each car was 24 feet in length (real or scale).



Rail top to top of car:


Prototype 11.6'
USAT 13.8'
MDC 11.4' 


Bottom of frame to top of rail :


Prototype 2.9'
USAT 3.7'
MDC 2.9' 


The area of the rectangle making up the entire side of the car frame:


Prototype 209sq'
USAT 244sq'
MDC 206sq' 


I also noticed that in your picture, the MDC car is only 1/16 of an inch shorter (real measurement, not scaled). Those two cars are very similar in length. There isn't a 10% difference in length if one is supposed to be 1:32 and the other 1:29. 


My guess is that you would have to lower the car body on the USAT by about 1/3 of an inch to make it compatible with the prototype height above the rail.




I have always thought that the USAT cars didn't look quite right, now I know why. They are most likely too tall for the ore cars used in the Minnesota Iron Ranges.


Hope this helps.


Chuck


----------



## adelmo (Jan 2, 2008)

I have the LGB ore cars, great detail and can be close coupled as a set. Railhead height is 4-3/4" and ore box length is 8-1/2". Kevin Strong reviewed these in the March 2006 Garden Railways. I purchased the set $150 for 4, need to replace plastic wheels though. It would be nice to see all the ore cars in a lineup. Looking forward to running my LGB's outside next spring.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I looked at a picture of the LGB ore cars. I am convinced they are different from the USAT and the MDC. The LGB cars appear to have the proper relationship of the wheels/trucks to the body ends, like the MDC and the height looked better. 

Right now, they look like the closest for 1:29. Good price for you! I see them for over $200 on ebay most times for the set of 4. I'd buy them all day at the price you got. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Well my eye ball tells me they are larger than 1/29. As I mentioned also they are a bit pricey. Later RJD


----------



## CJGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

the biggest problem with these cars, is that they are the Michigan style ore cars, and the GN as well as the Missabe (DM&IR) had the Minnesota style ore cars. Note how the model has that nasty platform above the couplers, this is common of the michigan ore cars. these were used by railroads such as the milwaukee, and C&NW. Both roads also had some minnesota style cars twards the 1970's and 1980's, most comming from the DM&IR as they sold off excess rolling stock. a good example of mixed ore cars is on the LS&I.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2008)

Minnesota style ore cars.

http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=256484&nseq=14


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=226517&nseq=134


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=222666&nseq=170


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=201798&nseq=273


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=194141&nseq=303


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=179920&nseq=361


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=179919&nseq=362


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=160617&nseq=466


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=150374&nseq=525


http://209.85.120.98/viewphoto.php?id=110244&nseq=725


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

Can someone please post pictures of the Michigan style ore cars that Sean mentioned. I was not aware that there were differences on either side of Lake Superior.

Chuck N


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

I was think'in, if you placed the gunderson trucks on the hor car maybe it would sit lower? I use the gunderson trucks on many of my LGB items and it sets them about 3/16" lower on the truck. 
just a thought.


----------



## adelmo (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty: Where do you get the gunderson trucks and what metal wheels do you use?
Thanks, Alan


----------



## GaryY (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By chuck n on 12/17/2008 7:45 AM
Can someone please post pictures of the Michigan style ore cars that Sean mentioned. I was not aware that there were differences on either side of Lake Superior.

Chuck N 







Here's a link to a Walthers HO scale Michigan Style..Ore Car

http://www.walthers.com/exec/productinfo/932-40504

Gary


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Alan 
I can't remember the part number but Treeman here on MLS is our local club dealer and he knows which ones I use. I 'd just use the steel wheels that come with the car, they are all USAT parts. 
Again, I am just thinking here. I have thought about buying one ore car just to work on. Also with that small of car I'd buy 820 scale couplers to set them closer. 
 
In Gregs photo








it almost looks like you could cut the spacer thingy off the top of thr truck to lower the car.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I think you could Marty, I'll try to post some shots of the underside with the trucks off. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Using the Aristo trucks actually works just as well as I posted pics earler Much better and do not have the funky imitation springs in the trucks. Later RJD


----------



## NTCGRR (Jan 2, 2008)

Well it would be nice not to have to buy other trucks for all the cars. 
I may have to get one. 
See what Greg thinks can be shaved off or adjusted.


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Marty the other reason I use them I had a bunch left over from coveting newer rolling stock over to the AC roller bearing trucks. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I have shot more pictures, and there is a spacer on the bolster, and even better, the center pin that holds the truck on is solid all the way to the chassis floor, so you can cut the bolsters down as low as you want until you rub the wheels. 

All of this is on my page: *[url]http://www.elmassian.com/trains-mainmenu-27/rolling-stock-mods-aamp-tips-mainmenu-33/usat-rolling-stock-mainmenu-87/ore-cars-mainmenu-271*[/url] 


The picture below shows the square spacer glued on: (you can just make out that the center post is continuous all the way back to the "floor":













Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks Greg. I will be looking at my 10 cars to see if its worth lowering. Later RJD


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I added more pictures to my site to make it easy to compare a prototype to the usat car. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## aceinspp (Jan 2, 2008)

Wow we even got Greg thinking of a small bash.







Later RJD


----------

