mike brock <brockm@...>
Tim O'Connor writes:
Are we doing all of this AGAIN?
Well...looks like it. Heck, who knows we might get it "right" this time.
True enough...particularly if those car types are all that is considered. My point is, however, that other car types need to be included in specific locations. Not to determine the number of box cars and reefers but the other various types. IOW, for those modeling RR's in the midwest we might need to develop the projected number of N&W hoppers on the NYC and Pennsy lines north of Columbus, OH. OTOH, such numbers would not apply to the Pennsy or NYC into St.Louis. Similarly, anyone modeling the B&O between Pittsburgh and Chicago would need to study populations of hopper cars in that area.
Mike, I can't agree with your statement. If I model the C&O in WestI haven't studied N&W hoppers...or those of other RRs...on the C&O. I can tell you that solid trains of N&W hoppers operated on the NYC and Pennsy north of Columbus, OH. Also, unexpectedly, both L&N and Clinchfield hoppers were found in N&W trains operating east from Roanoke.
Unlike the box cars which
roamed freely and more or less "randomly" (per Gilbert), hoppers (inI'll grant you that large numbers of eastern RR hoppers might not have wandered around "randomly" even in the east but they did wander and that's really all that matters when the purpose of the evaluation is to determine what cars were present in specific areas. I'll add that, even in the case of C&O, if the number of WM hoppers turns out to be one car per 300 C&O hoppers, that will likely match the number of Texas and Pacific box cars on Sherman Hill. More importantly, such hopper car projections are necessary to determine the number of C&O hoppers on the Rutland [ wherever that is ]...rather than the other way.