Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

mike brock wrote:
Yes, but doesn't it make sense to add PFE cars to the UP...and SP...numbers? Certainly such cars were extremely important to UP and SP and, of course, there is the ownership factor.
Depends a bit on what you're trying to show. In my bar chart (posted on my blog) I graphed PFE as a separate bar from SP and UP (and BTW a pretty respectable fleet all by itself). But if you want to reflect the PFE cars within SP and UP, how do you divide it? It was owned half and half, so you could split it down the middle. But SP originated two-thirds of the loads, so you could assign two-thirds of the cars to SP . . . starts getting complicated.
In terms of the car fleet which a modeler ought to have (other things being equal), I feel like the separate bar in the graph for PFE is a reasonable representation. And after all, it's a separate reporting mark.
If we're looking for bragging rights vs. other railroads, hey, let's add (some fraction of) the PFE cars to each railroad. But as I understood the prior topic, we were looking at railroad car fleets, especially box cars. The PFE cars are the reefer fleet of SP and UP, and as such seem to me to be a little separate.
And lest this seem like an arcane topic of interest only to UP and SP modelers, let me observe that you have a comparable issue with the IGN relative to MoPac, the PM relative to C&O, and even the T&NO relative to SP. Separate reporting marks, but commonality of car types and car usage--and all these subsidiary road car fleets were operated in tandem with the parent road. Whether you add them to the parent road fleet size depends on what you're trying to show.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail,
Publishers of books on railroad history

Join to automatically receive all group messages.