Re: Why not model actual train consists?


Robert kirkham
 

On the other hand, if I have consists for one of the classes of trains I need to model, it helps. When modelling the trains for which there are no consists one can use other versions of analysis/guess-work we often resort to - but no sense dispensing with better info if it is available.

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@mchsi.com>
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 4:02 PM
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Why not model actual train consists?



--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:


Interestingly, I have yet to find single consist from my period on my
modeled section of railroad (PRR, COLA tower, June 1944) so I have no
choice anyway.
I tend to agree with Bruce. If one is trying to model the operation, unless one has access to the train consists across the territory for the entire time modeled, or preferably multiples of that time period, you have no assurance you have all the cars you need. Even having a year's worth of time book consists won't assure you all the cars; depending on where the owner of the time book stood on the seniority roster, he likely wasn't working ALL the possible jobs. If he was too far down the list, he didn't catch the prize manifest jobs, whereas, if he was near the top, he didn't catch the dog-breath locals and empty car haulers. Either way, he missed recording either the reefers running non stop clear across the division, or the stinky Mty stockcars.

If you are going to model the entire day's action across the territory, rather than just one train, you need both, and everything else in between.

Dennis



------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.