Date   

Re: Hoppers?

Clark Propst
 

You guys haven't looked at my spread sheet.

Dallas Center Station Records 1953-54-55
Train 197 Date 11/20/54 Initials C&O number 134201 series 129000-135499 Type HM lading Coal from Philco W Va to Farmers Coop Dallas Center returned 11/24/54 Train 196 empty from Dallas Center to Peoria Ill.

Did this guy have friends running around the Upper Midwest?

Clark Propst


Re: Hoppers?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Al Kresse wrote:
It would not be unusual to see both C&O and N&W hopper cars in the same coal yard in Cleveland during home heating season. They did have brokers.
Al makes a vital point. I was acquainted with a fellow member of the Pittsburgh club when I lived there, and his uncle had worked for a coal broker. He said they would be checking coal prices at mines all the time and looking for the best deal on the grade of coal they sold for domestic use. This means that in some areas, a range of railroad- owned hoppers could be delivered, in other areas one and only one (because transportation cost mattered too). Strikes could change all this, but I believe it's unwise to model exceptions.

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


Re: Hoppers?

water.kresse@...
 

It would not be unusual to see both C&O and N&W hopper cars in the same coal yard in Cleveland during home heating season.  They did have brokers.

 

A lot of Bob Photo's 1950s C&O freight car images come from Charlotte(sp?) , NC.

 

Al Kresse

Romeo, Michigan

----- Original Message -----




From: "O Fenton Wells" <srrfan1401@ gmail .com>
To: STMFC @ yahoogroups .com
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 2:47:50 PM
Subject: Re: [ STMFC ] Re: Hoppers?

This prompts a question in my mind and that is was there a limited number
of railroads who delivered heating coal to coal dealers?  In other words
would I be more apt to see a N&W or B&O hopper at my local coal dealer in
say Sanford NC or Richmond VA?  Or would I have seen the local railroad,
assuming they had hoppers, be the deliverer of that product?  Sanford NC
should either be SAL or  A&Y(Southern), direct or from a NS(old) hand
off or perhaps even A&W or ACL up from Fayetteville .  I realize
the industry serving railroad would deliver the car to the coal dealer.  Or
would I see a Reading or NYC hopper down here delivering home heating
coal?  What prompted this question was the fact that this weekend I found
out that in the mid-1950's the Durham and Southern RR largest product
category , by car load was coal and it apparently picked up from the N&W in
Durham and delivered to the SAL near Aberdeen.  I was very surprised.  I
don't know much about the car routing and delivery of certain products so I
would welcome opinions from anyone who does.
Fenton Wells

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Bruce Smith < smithbf @auburn. edu > wrote:

**


Bruce Smith wrote:
Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that
C&O cars never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was
reminded by the recent publication of the new PRR book on Columbus
( PRRT &HS, Rick Tipton ) that the C&O routinely interchanged full
trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR at Columbus and
this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C& O's total
coal traffic at one time.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:
That this single "unit train" operation was a significant
fraction of all C&O traffic sounds to me like the exception that
proves the rule: not a lot of C&O hoppers went off line--EXCEPT the
lake coal via Columbus.
Absolutely (but that wasn't the original "rule" <G>). I'll add the
somewhat obvious comment that, because these were handled as complete
trains, there was little opportunity for individual cars to get diverted
and mixed into the general population, although it did happen from time to
time.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https ://www5. vetmed .auburn. edu /~ smithbf /

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0



 


--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@ gmail .com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Hoppers?

Douglas Harding
 

Clark, looking at the documents you transcribed into the spreadsheet, I see
one error in your question. The LV car was hauling lumber to Hoover Lumber,
not limestone to Hallet Construction. Which explains why the car is a boxcar
and not a hopper or gon. You will want to make that correction in your
spreadsheet.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org


Re: Hoppers?

O Fenton Wells
 

This prompts a question in my mind and that is was there a limited number
of railroads who delivered heating coal to coal dealers? In other words
would I be more apt to see a N&W or B&O hopper at my local coal dealer in
say Sanford NC or Richmond VA? Or would I have seen the local railroad,
assuming they had hoppers, be the deliverer of that product? Sanford NC
should either be SAL or A&Y(Southern), direct or from a NS(old) hand
off or perhaps even A&W or ACL up from Fayetteville. I realize
the industry serving railroad would deliver the car to the coal dealer. Or
would I see a Reading or NYC hopper down here delivering home heating
coal? What prompted this question was the fact that this weekend I found
out that in the mid-1950's the Durham and Southern RR largest product
category , by car load was coal and it apparently picked up from the N&W in
Durham and delivered to the SAL near Aberdeen. I was very surprised. I
don't know much about the car routing and delivery of certain products so I
would welcome opinions from anyone who does.
Fenton Wells

On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Bruce Smith <smithbf@auburn.edu> wrote:

**


Bruce Smith wrote:
Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that
C&O cars never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was
reminded by the recent publication of the new PRR book on Columbus
(PRRT&HS, Rick Tipton) that the C&O routinely interchanged full
trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR at Columbus and
this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C&O's total
coal traffic at one time.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:
That this single "unit train" operation was a significant
fraction of all C&O traffic sounds to me like the exception that
proves the rule: not a lot of C&O hoppers went off line--EXCEPT the
lake coal via Columbus.
Absolutely (but that wasn't the original "rule" <G>). I'll add the
somewhat obvious comment that, because these were handled as complete
trains, there was little opportunity for individual cars to get diverted
and mixed into the general population, although it did happen from time to
time.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0






--
Fenton Wells
3047 Creek Run
Sanford NC 27332
919-499-5545
srrfan1401@gmail.com


Re: Hoppers?

Benjamin Hom
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
“Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that  C&O cars
never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was reminded by the recent
publication of the new PRR book on Columbus (PRRT&HS, Rick Tipton) that the C&O
routinely interchanged full  trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR
at Columbus and  this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C&O's
total coal traffic at one time.”


Tony Thompson replied:
“That this single "unit train" operation was a significant  fraction of all C&O
traffic sounds to me like the exception that  proves the rule: not a lot of C&O
hoppers went off line--EXCEPT the lake coal via Columbus.”
 
I’ve got to agree with Tony on this one.  All we’ve done with this example is to
disprove an absolute – that C&O hoppers never left home rails.  Of overarching
importance is the second point that Bruce made in his previous post: what you
model depends entirely on where you model.
 
Really, the obvious question is “so what?”  If you model the Cumberland Valley
or the route that the lake coal took via Columbus, this data is spot on.  For
the rest of us, it’s irrelevant.  Case in point: I’ve been taking a hard look at
the hopper fleet of the NEB&W using the data from the logs and shifting lists
from the Premo collection.  Out of 1267 data records for hoppers, only three
were C&O hoppers.  Granted, this data and what we are trying to represent on the
NEB&W are not exact analogs, but this, combined with the paucity of N&W (5), VGN
(3), and Clinchfield (3) cars seems to support that the SCO directing return of
empty hoppers to these railroads vice “stealing” them for other loads was being
followed and that these roads are currently over-represented in our model fleet.
 
So, as Warren Zevon would say, “Ha’ina ‘ia mai ana ka puana.”  Turns out that
we’ve acquired a large number of C&O cars over the years that we’ll now have to
downsize.  Additionally, the data also shows that B&O cars were on the opposite
end of the scale (276 of 1267),  so we’ve got some B&O hoppers to build,
including Duryea underframes and more than a few N-12 and N-10 subclasses. 
Guess this is some delayed revenge of sorts by the B&O for the C&O takeover.
 
 
Ben Hom


Re: Hoppers?

Bruce Smith
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that
C&O cars never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was
reminded by the recent publication of the new PRR book on Columbus
(PRRT&HS, Rick Tipton) that the C&O routinely interchanged full
trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR at Columbus and
this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C&O's total
coal traffic at one time.
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:04 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:
That this single "unit train" operation was a significant
fraction of all C&O traffic sounds to me like the exception that
proves the rule: not a lot of C&O hoppers went off line--EXCEPT the
lake coal via Columbus.
Absolutely (but that wasn't the original "rule" <G>). I'll add the somewhat obvious comment that, because these were handled as complete trains, there was little opportunity for individual cars to get diverted and mixed into the general population, although it did happen from time to time.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Hoppers?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that C&O cars never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was reminded by the recent publication of the new PRR book on Columbus (PRRT&HS, Rick Tipton) that the C&O routinely interchanged full trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR at Columbus and this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C&O's total coal traffic at one time.
That this single "unit train" operation was a significant fraction of all C&O traffic sounds to me like the exception that proves the rule: not a lot of C&O hoppers went off line--EXCEPT the lake coal via Columbus.

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


Re: PRR Kystone Modeler etc.

Bruce Smith
 

<The on line RR Society modeler magazines are great but I wonder if they
<would be easier to read and view if done in landscape format. I imagine
<they might be best for iPad users but I think the majority of us are
<still using the conventional landscape oriented screen.
<These magazines are truely a joy to view and very helpful for
<information on the cars in interchange. I am glad the NYC group has
<joined the list of publications. The PRR Keystone has and remains
<fantastic in my opinion.
<Thanks,
<Tyrone Johnsen
<Rockford, IL

On Oct 31, 2011, at 12:08 PM, Jack Burgess replied:
Assuming that the online version is an "extra" and that the magazines are
primarily intended for print distribution, they need to stay with the
traditional portrait orientation.
Jack,

At least from the PRRT&HS view point, these are two very separate magazines. The Keystone (aka "the stone") will remain as print publication for the foreseeable future, with the caveat that back issues are available from the PRRT&HS in both CD and DVD formats (with nice search capabilities). The online Keystone Modeler (aka TKM) could go to a landscape format, similar to Model Railroad Hobbyist, but for now it seems that most readers prefer the "magazine feel".

Interestingly, watching the birth of the NYC modeler, some of the same arguments arose with them as with the PRRT&HS - we just solved the problem a LOT earlier ;^) There was continuous pressure to have modeling, an ever growing component of the society, appear in the Keystone. However (and I'll note that this was poorly articulated at the time), the editorial staff of the Keystone wanted to preserve the concept that the content was archival. We all know that most modeling articles have a life of about 10 year and at most about 15-20 years, but the historical articles in the Keystone would have an indefinite life. With the creation of an online modeling eZine, we now have a separation of formats, with the Keystone being the archival resource on the prototype and TKM being a more flexible format with perhaps a more limited lifespan, covering the modeling aspects and keeping these articles out of the archival forum.


Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Hoppers?

Bruce Smith
 

Bob Witt wrote:

I guess I'll jump in ... for some railroads like the B&O the one hole is
the lack of a pre-USRA twin hopper.
<SNIP>
I recall you model the early 1940s so you really need some N-12 with
your fleet of foreign road hoppers.

General Arrangement drawings are available at the Pullman Library at the
IRM for both of these hoppers.
Bob,

I guess I was actually trying to suggest that STMFCers not all jump in with their wish lists <G> since hoppers don't have nationwide interest.

However, since you've contributed one somewhat notable gap, I'll make the suggestion that you contact Steve Funaro. F&C has lately been fantastic for PRR open top cars, with another on the way ;^) I know Steve is looking for subjects and the N-12 might be just the thing (I'm trying to get together enough information to get him to do a common READING hopper too).

Hey, and while you're at it, why don't you see about getting someone to do a Duryea underframe for a variety of hoppers? I'm still trying to figure out how to "fix" my P2K war emergency B&O cars.

Modeling foreign coal hoppers does bring up some interesting questions. During WWII, full trains of B&O, WM and N&W origin coal came up the Cumberland Valley to Enola and thence east. As far as I can tell most of these were the closest thing at the time to "unit trains" and were solid consists of originating road cars. Neither wanting to build complete trains of hoppers from these foreign roads, nor having the operating capacity to handle them (on my planned layout), I've condensed them into blocks of foreign cars.

Another issue we discussed earlier this year was the impression that C&O cars never left home rails and how wrong that really is. I was reminded by the recent publication of the new PRR book on Columbus (PRRT&HS, Rick Tipton) that the C&O routinely interchanged full trains of coal for great lakes ports with the PRR at Columbus and this traffic accounted for a reasonable percentage of C&O's total coal traffic at one time. This makes 2 points, first, that C&O cars did travel offline, and second, what you model depends entirely on where you model. Most PRR modelers don't need that much in the way of N&W or C&O cars, but if you model Columbus, its a completely different situation.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Tank cars was:Re: Hoppers?

Clark Propst
 

Gee, I just wanted to show that hoppers from all over the place were ganged together for a single move. Didn't happen all the time, but did happen.

For me, resin kits fill the one of a kind box, gon, flat car hole. I've built a resin hopper and tank car, they're not something I want to do again. Besides, most guys need strings of hoppers resin is not only time but cost prohibitive.

While there are several good plastic hoppers available, don't we have just two tank cars? The IM and P2K cars?

Clark Propst


Re: PRR Kystone Modeler etc.

Jack Burgess
 

<The on line RR Society modeler magazines are great but I wonder if they
<would be easier to read and view if done in landscape format. I imagine
<they might be best for iPad users but I think the majority of us are
<still using the conventional landscape oriented screen.
<These magazines are truely a joy to view and very helpful for
<information on the cars in interchange. I am glad the NYC group has
<joined the list of publications. The PRR Keystone has and remains
<fantastic in my opinion.
<Thanks,
<Tyrone Johnsen
<Rockford, IL

Assuming that the online version is an "extra" and that the magazines are
primarily intended for print distribution, they need to stay with the
traditional portrait orientation.

Just my thoughts...

Jack Burgess
Newark, CA


PRR Kystone Modeler etc.

aaejj2j
 

The on line RR Society modeler magazines are great but I wonder if they would be easier to read and view if done in landscape format. I imagine they might be best for iPad users but I think the majority of us are still using the conventional landscape oriented screen.
These magazines are truely a joy to view and very helpful for information on the cars in interchange. I am glad the NYC group has joined the list of publications. The PRR Keystone has and remains fantastic in my opinion.
Thanks,
Tyrone Johnsen
Rockford, IL


Re: Paint schemes timlines

Richard Orr <SUVCWORR@...>
 

Tim,

Jerry corrected items 1, 2, and 3. The photo of model of the Nk3 with a CK
has been removed. The model of the Sk2b is still there without seeing the
actual model it is very difficult to tell if the numerals are the same size
as reporting marks. The photo of 720452 was removed. Item 7 this is again
a photo of a model which may or may not have incorrect height letters.

The MOW schemes which would include the stores scheme are not covered. No
idea where this originated with respect to the cited page.

I do not see anything that would indicate the "Don't stand me still" slogan
and the calendar number are contemporaneous. The calendar numbers were only
used for 6 months in 1954 where the slogan was not adopted until 1955 and
only applied to 500 X29D boxcars.

All-in-all Rick comments were valid a number of years ago but are no longer
are applicable to the site since all the errors were corrected except for 2
photos of models. Which are as with all models the builders interpretation
of reality.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Monday, October 31, 2011 4:43 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Paint schemes timlines

Rich Orr wrote

The PRR shadow Keystone was first applied to class X48 (PS-1) boxcars in
February, 1954.
It began being applied to all freight cars in August 1954. The plain
keystone was adopted
in late 1961 and applied to all cars beginning in 1962. Keep in mind
that there are 4 different
shadow keystone schemes because of changes in the font used in the
reporting marks and numerals.

For the complete list of PRR P/L schemes see
http://kc.pennsyrr.com/freightops/schemes.php

=====================================================================

Rich,

I wonder if it is worthwhile to re-post this old email from the original
Freightcars mailing list from Rick Tipton regarding the information
available
on the Keystone Crossings web site. I don't know enough about PRR schemes to
know whether Rick's "nitpicks" were valid or are still valid today. The
email
was posted in January 1999.

Tim O'Connor

======================================================================

All of you must have had a great holiday season, as only Terry Stuart picked
up the challenge to critique points of accuracy on the Keystone Crossings
website freight car lettering "page." Thanks to Jerry Britton for being
tolerant of my beefing about fine points of PRR's freight car lettering
practices; I appreciate his continuing work in keeping us all communicating
via Keystone Crossings and PRR-Talk.

As promised, here's my New Year's Eve list of nitpicks on the freight car
scheme portion of the Keystone Crossings website. Again, I apologize for
being a scale rule Richard (pun intended here), but I've been researching
this
area pretty hard recently, and Jerry and I both want the posted info to be
correct.

It's unfortunate that the Summer 1988 Keystone is out of print, as Brady
McGuire's article illustrates all the below so well:

DESCRIPTIONS
1. NK3 "PENNSYLVANIA" is not double-underlined on any of the NK3 pictures
I've
found. I've just verified this again from PRR freight car photos in a 1916
Car Builder's Cyclopedia. A one-inch bar is placed between the 7"
PENNSYLVANIA and the 7" car number, like

PENNSYLVANIA
123456

2. NK4. Says the number is underlined, but "PENNSYLVANIA" is not.
More
correctly, the 7" reporting marks are bracketed above and below by 1" lines:
_____________
PENNSYLVANIA
123456

3. "Don't Stand Me Still" and the calendar script numbers aren't
contemporaries, and aren't used on the same car.
- DSMS was used only on X29D. In fact, it was used only on 500 of the
X29D's
that were rebuilt in August 1955, well into the SK1b period.
- SK1a was used on just a few cars (February to June 1954): 20 X48's, the
first order of 350 H34's, and a few boxcar repaints.
- Don't confuse X29D rebuilds with X29B. X29B's rebuilds (1948) were way
too
early to carry SK1a, although some did carry MS1 Merchandise scheme, which
is
of course based on the CK scheme.


CAR MODELS SHOWN ON THE SITE
4. PRR 913467 has reporting marks of NK3, but carries CK herald. Wonder
if
this ever happened in real life? No prototype photos like this known to me.

5. PRR 69636 is recognizably SK2b pattern, but the PRR and the 69636
don't
look the same size. They should both be 7" letters.

6. PRR 720452 looks like SK2a (not SK2b) to me, because the reporting
marks
are in Roman.

7. PRR 67402 represents PK, but the numbers 67402 look a little small.
According to Brady, these were 10" numerals under a 14" bold Gothic PRR.

8. And from Terry Stuart: PRR 497289 Terry questions the white S in a
white
box. In every prototype boxcar picture I've seen with this style stores
marking, the S is yellow in a yellow box, not white. Terry is also correct
that the PRR is not quite the correct lettering style. It should probably
be
slightly fatter (it's BOLD Gothic) and placed slightly lower, since this is
just extra markings (and a nonrevenue car number) on a PK paint scheme.

BTW, just to keep the pot boiling, does anybody have a strong opinion of
which
phase (s) is represented by Bowser's lettering of the F30A flat car? If so,
what persuades you it belongs to that phase?

Rick Tipton
On the Panhandle in Louisville KY



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Hoppers?

rwitt_2000
 

Bruce,

I guess I'll jump in ... for some railroads like the B&O the one hole is
the lack of a pre-USRA twin hopper.

For the B&O this was their class N-12 a seven side post design with end
sills built over a decade beginning in 1913 and ending in 1923. It is a
significant class as it seems to be the hopper that moved the B&O coal
car fleet from a mixture of gondolas and twin hoppers to a fleet
composed of essentially all twin hoppers. The B&O had over 10,000 of
these hoppers and was the backbone of the fleet until they began
purchasing AAR off-set side hoppers in large quantities after WWII. It
was their "standard twin hopper" and even though they received almost
3,000 hoppers from the USRA, they immediately returned to building the
N-12 after WWI with an additional 5,000 cars built.

To a lesser extent an earlier B&O hopper, the class N-10, a nine side
post design built in 1905 and 1910 is also needed. A good candidate for
a resin model.

I recall you model the early 1940s so you really need some N-12 with
your fleet of foreign road hoppers.

General Arrangement drawings are available at the Pullman Library at the
IRM for both of these hoppers.

Bob Witt

Bruce Smith wrote:

Armand, who is obviously bored and looking to stir up some action on
the
STMFC list asks... <G>

While there are several models of hoppers available I personally feel
that the current offerings do not truly represent the >prototype
fleet.

Good Golly Armand,

You really want me to ask? Its just that the replies will go on
forever... Ok, I'm a sucker... what are the major holes you see? I
don't have any from my perspective... Here's my analysis for my
fleet.

First, the good news is that we all (or almost all) agree that hoppers
were local/regional in distribution, so it really does matter what
railroad you model as to whose cars you need. Those western guys will
be moaning right about now about how irrelevent this thread is because
it really does not matter for them (much).

As a Pennsy modelers, i have nearly every car I could wish for for my
PRR fleet. Yes, I would LOVE it if some were reissued in 21st century
tooling, but that brings its own set of issues, and I'm going to be
heretical and say that as I get older, I find that a good weathering
job
can make a car with molded on grabs look pretty darn good...

Going beyond the PRR fleet, I can readily find major cars for most
connecting roads such as B&O, C&O, READING, N&W and a whole slew of
midewestern roads. Add into that some really neat "oddballs" such as
Susquehanna and I'm sitting purty. Without wheel reports to guide me,
I'm going 75% PRR, 25% other, with mutliple cars from the connecting
coal roads and single cars from a slew of others. A box from Toy Train
Heaven arrived just last week with N&W and READING fishbelly and WM
channel side 55 ton 2 bays, and I'm just about to order the decals for
my M&StL USRA hopper and AA and Wabash war emergency cars so I have a
bunch of hopper projects on tap... not to mention the resin needing to
built!

So, from my vantage point, between plastic such as Bowser (and
ex-Stewart), Accurail, Tichy and P2K (and not for me, but Kadee) there
is a nice selection, and then resin fills out many cars with
Westerfields, F&C (cheap!) and Sunshine. These cars are too numerous
to
elucidate individually in an email, but I'm sure that many STMFC
listers
will be tempted to do so <G>!

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


Re: Hoppers?

Bruce Smith
 

Armand, who is obviously bored and looking to stir up some action on the
STMFC list asks... <G>

While there are several models of hoppers available I personally feel
that the current offerings do not truly represent the >prototype fleet.

Good Golly Armand,

You really want me to ask? Its just that the replies will go on
forever... Ok, I'm a sucker... what are the major holes you see? I
don't have any from my perspective... Here's my analysis for my fleet.

First, the good news is that we all (or almost all) agree that hoppers
were local/regional in distribution, so it really does matter what
railroad you model as to whose cars you need. Those western guys will
be moaning right about now about how irrelevent this thread is because
it really does not matter for them (much).

As a Pennsy modelers, i have nearly every car I could wish for for my
PRR fleet. Yes, I would LOVE it if some were reissued in 21st century
tooling, but that brings its own set of issues, and I'm going to be
heretical and say that as I get older, I find that a good weathering job
can make a car with molded on grabs look pretty darn good...

Going beyond the PRR fleet, I can readily find major cars for most
connecting roads such as B&O, C&O, READING, N&W and a whole slew of
midewestern roads. Add into that some really neat "oddballs" such as
Susquehanna and I'm sitting purty. Without wheel reports to guide me,
I'm going 75% PRR, 25% other, with mutliple cars from the connecting
coal roads and single cars from a slew of others. A box from Toy Train
Heaven arrived just last week with N&W and READING fishbelly and WM
channel side 55 ton 2 bays, and I'm just about to order the decals for
my M&StL USRA hopper and AA and Wabash war emergency cars so I have a
bunch of hopper projects on tap... not to mention the resin needing to
built!

So, from my vantage point, between plastic such as Bowser (and
ex-Stewart), Accurail, Tichy and P2K (and not for me, but Kadee) there
is a nice selection, and then resin fills out many cars with
Westerfields, F&C (cheap!) and Sunshine. These cars are too numerous to
elucidate individually in an email, but I'm sure that many STMFC listers
will be tempted to do so <G>!

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL


this has been how to start your new life.

thmsdmpsy
 

<p>Hi friend...<br>i am living better<br><a href="http://walnut-hill-farm.org/JamesBrown83.html">http://walnut-hill-farm.org/JamesBrown83.html</a><br>see you later.</p>


Re: Hoppers?

Armand Premo
 

While there are several models of hoppers available I personally feel that the current offerings do not truly represent the prototype fleet.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 6:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Hoppers?



Per notes from various sources:

CRR 49869, IC 76247 and 87402, D&H 3987, MILW 95009 hoppers
L&A 9144 50' high side gondola
MILW 83117 I don't know (series 81482-83480 *even* were double-sheathed boxcars, most other 8xxxx were gondolas)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Clark and Eileen" <cepropst@...> wrote:
>
> I haven't looked in the ORER yet. But I'm assuming all these cars are hoppers. I'm transcribing a Station Car Record book into Excel and though these entries might be of interest to some.
>
> Train Date Initial Number Contents Consignor Consignee
> 197 6/13/55 LV 60255 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 CRR 49869 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 IC 76247 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 D&H 3987 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 IC 8740 2 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 NYC 860008 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/14/55 Milw 95009 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 196 6/22/55 L&A 9144 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
> 197 6/26/55 Milw 83117 Limestone Ferguson Ia Hallet Const
>
>
>
> Clark Propst
> Mason City Iowa
>
>
>


Re: Paint schemes timlines

Tim O'Connor
 

Rich Orr wrote

The PRR shadow Keystone was first applied to class X48 (PS-1) boxcars in February, 1954.
It began being applied to all freight cars in August 1954. The plain keystone was adopted
in late 1961 and applied to all cars beginning in 1962. Keep in mind that there are 4 different
shadow keystone schemes because of changes in the font used in the reporting marks and numerals.

For the complete list of PRR P/L schemes see http://kc.pennsyrr.com/freightops/schemes.php

=====================================================================

Rich,

I wonder if it is worthwhile to re-post this old email from the original
Freightcars mailing list from Rick Tipton regarding the information available
on the Keystone Crossings web site. I don't know enough about PRR schemes to
know whether Rick's "nitpicks" were valid or are still valid today. The email
was posted in January 1999.

Tim O'Connor

======================================================================

All of you must have had a great holiday season, as only Terry Stuart picked
up the challenge to critique points of accuracy on the Keystone Crossings
website freight car lettering "page." Thanks to Jerry Britton for being
tolerant of my beefing about fine points of PRR's freight car lettering
practices; I appreciate his continuing work in keeping us all communicating
via Keystone Crossings and PRR-Talk.

As promised, here's my New Year's Eve list of nitpicks on the freight car
scheme portion of the Keystone Crossings website. Again, I apologize for
being a scale rule Richard (pun intended here), but I've been researching this
area pretty hard recently, and Jerry and I both want the posted info to be
correct.

It's unfortunate that the Summer 1988 Keystone is out of print, as Brady
McGuire's article illustrates all the below so well:

DESCRIPTIONS
1. NK3 "PENNSYLVANIA" is not double-underlined on any of the NK3 pictures I've
found. I've just verified this again from PRR freight car photos in a 1916
Car Builder's Cyclopedia. A one-inch bar is placed between the 7"
PENNSYLVANIA and the 7" car number, like

PENNSYLVANIA
123456

2. NK4. Says the number is underlined, but "PENNSYLVANIA" is not. More
correctly, the 7" reporting marks are bracketed above and below by 1" lines:
_____________
PENNSYLVANIA
123456

3. "Don't Stand Me Still" and the calendar script numbers aren't
contemporaries, and aren't used on the same car.
- DSMS was used only on X29D. In fact, it was used only on 500 of the X29D's
that were rebuilt in August 1955, well into the SK1b period.
- SK1a was used on just a few cars (February to June 1954): 20 X48's, the
first order of 350 H34's, and a few boxcar repaints.
- Don't confuse X29D rebuilds with X29B. X29B's rebuilds (1948) were way too
early to carry SK1a, although some did carry MS1 Merchandise scheme, which is
of course based on the CK scheme.


CAR MODELS SHOWN ON THE SITE
4. PRR 913467 has reporting marks of NK3, but carries CK herald. Wonder if
this ever happened in real life? No prototype photos like this known to me.

5. PRR 69636 is recognizably SK2b pattern, but the PRR and the 69636 don't
look the same size. They should both be 7" letters.

6. PRR 720452 looks like SK2a (not SK2b) to me, because the reporting marks
are in Roman.

7. PRR 67402 represents PK, but the numbers 67402 look a little small.
According to Brady, these were 10" numerals under a 14" bold Gothic PRR.

8. And from Terry Stuart: PRR 497289 Terry questions the white S in a white
box. In every prototype boxcar picture I've seen with this style stores
marking, the S is yellow in a yellow box, not white. Terry is also correct
that the PRR is not quite the correct lettering style. It should probably be
slightly fatter (it's BOLD Gothic) and placed slightly lower, since this is
just extra markings (and a nonrevenue car number) on a PK paint scheme.

BTW, just to keep the pot boiling, does anybody have a strong opinion of which
phase (s) is represented by Bowser's lettering of the F30A flat car? If so,
what persuades you it belongs to that phase?

Rick Tipton
On the Panhandle in Louisville KY


Re: Time Period Covered by STMFC Group

Jim Gates
 

bbfcl - 1954-1986
mfcl is 1960 and later


Jim Gates

________________________________
From: Schuyler Larrabee <schuyler.larrabee@verizon.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 9:04 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Time Period Covered by STMFC Group


 
There are two other lists:

The Baby Boomer FCL, which I believe covers around 1945 to maybe 1976? I'm
not a member so don't know for sure.

The Modern Freight Cars list, which I believe covers post-1960.

Both are Yahoo! lists and can be found on Yahoo!

SGL

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick
Dawson
Sent: Sunday, October 30, 2011 10:47 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Time Period Covered by STMFC Group

I'm relatively new to this group and find the level of expertise of the
participants to be remarkable. This was certainly exhibited in the photos
from the Lisle RPM Meet. I noticed photos of Penn Central and TTX cars,
which certainly caught my attention, as I designed cars built by both those
companies. Having worked in the freight car industry since the late 1960s,
my interests are more oriented to the period from about 1960 to the present.
This is true, not only because of my personal involvement for most of that
period, but also because of significant changes in freight car use and
construction that took place during that time, including the following:

the widespread use of 100-ton, and later 110-ton, cars

the replacement of solid journal bearings with roller bearings

the replacement of boxcars by covered hopper cars as the primary carriers of
grain, with covered hoppers eventually becoming the most widely used car
type

the introduction of 60-ft. and 86-ft. boxcars, first for auto parts and
eventually (although not 86-ft. cars) for a wide variety of loads

the enormous expansion of intermodal traffic and the proliferation of car
types used to haul it

The STMFC group's limitation to freight cars built prior to 1960 is entirely
logical, as indicated in the name, but the foregoing leads me to the
question of whether there is a similar discussion group that covers the
period after 1960. Any suggestions from the participants in this group
would be greatly appreciated.

Dick Dawson

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , "dh30973"
<dhussey@...> wrote:

The photos I took at the Lisle RPM Meet are up at:

http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/lisle2011
<http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/lisle2011
<http://www.pbase.com/dh30973/lisle2011&page=all> &page=all> &page=all

Dave Hussey
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18610)
http://www.pctools.com <http://www.pctools.com/?cclick=EmailFooterClean_51>
=======

=======
Email scanned by PC Tools - No viruses or spyware found.
(Email Guard: 7.0.0.21, Virus/Spyware Database: 6.18610)
http://www.pctools.com/
=======

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




88621 - 88640 of 192672