So I spent an hour at the Museum this morning picking up some blueprints for cataloguing and looking over/planning work for the winter months. As with many museums, we have a ton of work, and only a few people that actually come out to do said work. One of our upcoming projects is the reconstruction of our ex-CNR flanger. The floor was originaly 1 1/2" thick tongue in groove boards, with various widths from 4" to 8". The side boards were 2 3/4" thick and allowed for the tongue in groove siding to still be within the side of the steel beams.

So, with all that, my question is this. The floor is obviously shot, to the point where if you step on it, you'll fall through. Since it is only the floor, and the car is only for display, do we go with historic accuracy here, or just go with something simple in the lines of 2x6 or 2x8? The floor boards are all different widths anyways, so going with a standard 2x8 would give it a uniform surface.

As Museums we do try to keep things historically accurate, and we intend to do that as much as possible with the carbody. However, being a floor, something that will be hidden and painted, is it best to stay with the simple 2x8? Our other problem is we have yet to find any blue prints or plans for this car, so we'll be taking measurements from a twin that is located nearby.

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

My opinion is to go for historical accuracy, but as it appears the wood is weather exposed, replace it with pressure treated. My feeling is, since it is a museum piece, the public deserves to see it as it appeared in service, plus if it isn't going to be historically accurate, it's a post-service collection "what you propose it might look like".
Again, I tend to be narrow minded on these subjects, but there's one opinion.

The thought is, since it is only the floor, and will be covered over anyways, no one will actually see how it is constructed. The walls and supports will be accurate (or as close to as possible). The tongue in groove is going to be considerably more expensive to acquire, but we would use one standard size board, not various widths that are currently on it.

Ken, I'd tend to use t&g for this... buy the bigger size as used on the car and if only some planks are smaller, mill them down from the full width boards. This is just me... but unless the underside of the car is sheathed the planks will be visible to those who are trying to learn such details.

Just guessing, but I suspect the narrow planks were used to align better with wall framing members, etc.

This is probably full 2" lumber which is good, local mills are usually cheaper than lumberyards and more helpful in getting a few odd-sized cuts in an order without paying through the nose. It shouldn't cost more in either cost or labour to do it faithfully.

Steve Hunter

Richard, with the exception of the end platforms (about 32" each), the floor in these cars is protected normally. NRM's car lost its superstructure to a fire and that's why the wood has been exposed.

Steve Hunter

The underside of the flanger was sheeted with a very thin sheet metal to protect the wood from the snow whipping up off the wheels and plow blades. Not many mills that do custom work in this part of Southern Ontario.

Ken

You can mill your own T&G with a table saw.

A Pennsylvania RR combine that I've done some work on (as a helper, not a skilled woodworker) at the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania has tongue and groove flooring in its baggage section of three widths. The contractor doing the work milled the three sizes at his shop. It really isn't that hard to do, since you rip the boards to the proper width (Remember to allow for the tongue) and then use a router to mill the groove and the tongue.

I would hesitate to use pressure-treated lumber since it is prone to serious warping and checking and probably would not be of the correct thickness.

This. This is incredibly important, and a duty of a museum.

The purpose of keeping these things around in museums isn't only to say "oh, there's a thing that looks mostly like a CNR flanger", but to be a trustworthy source of information for someone trying to learn something from that CNR flanger.

It might seem like things that aren't visible aren't important, but they are.

Think about it this way: if, in 100 more years, the car is re-restored, and they look at the floor, do you want them to think the original was T&G, or plain boards?

Be very careful when using treated wood where it touches steel, or has un coated steal fasteners in it. The new method of treating wood is corosive. White oak. It isn't cheap but is tough and the pores are blocked so it will not wick moisture through a board. There are a few others that are good but in north America white oak is probably the easiest to get. I have a customer in west Michigan that has a sawmill and should be able to mill the boards the way you need them. It would be a bit of a trip to get it, but if your options are limited.....

Eric

If we're talking about museum accuracy, changing the species of wood is probably as big an error as is substituting plain boards for T&G.

The original wood in question doesn't look like oak to me (no broad rays) - it's probably a softwood of some sort, but specific identification would require cutting out a piece to expose unweathered wood for examination. The Forest Products Lab in Madison WI can identify such samples.

In any case, the work should be documented and samples of the original fabric should be saved for the record.

Are we certain the railroad didn't treat the original lumber in their creosote plant? Central of Georgia sent everything up to and including replacement window sash for their buildings to be creosoted before installation.

because of the amount of deterioration in the boards, we have not been able to actually identify the type of wood. I have sourced out some T&G red pine but i'm not sure how that will stand up. We are going to put a runner down for visitors to walk on, so it will get some pretection, but really not sure what would be best to use wood wise.

With the T&G question, you could do the alternate in house, it uses a groove on both boards and a 3/8"x3/4" or 3/8"x1" spline. This can be done with regular milled boards, just using a router or table saw. The splines you will probably have to rip yourself, but that is easy, IIRC usually they were a hardwood (for some reason Birch sounds correct) because of the thickness and strain. Make sure the grooves are at least 1/8" deeper than 1/2 the width of the spline (1/2" or 5/8" deep depending on the spline). The main reason for the spline is to keep the boards flat, if you don't spline or T&G them, they will twist and warp differently thus creating locations that will catch a toe or will throw you off balance. Don't forget to chamfer the edges of the boards, to minimize the possibility of tripping.

Can't say for CNR, but the Central Vermont Railway cabooses we have both look to have used Southern Yellow Pine (or maybe Douglas Fir) for the walking surface and the sub-floor, with a 3/4" layer of cork in between. On cabooses this was done (cork) for insulation (heat & vibration), not sure if they would have done it on a flanger also. As we have an ex-Sawyer for member, I am not sure what we purchased through his contacts for the restoration of CVRy 4052, but they are 10"-12" wide T&G. I know we still have a few drops down at the museum, I will check what size they were and ask the project head if he knows what type of pine we used.

Rich C.
Ct Eastern RR Museum
Willimantic, Ct 06226
http://www.cteastrrmuseum.org

On the CNR, you're most likely looking at Douglas Fir planks, but you'll still want an expert opinion on the species.

Steve Hunter