Date   

Southern Railway System "Via Sevier" - YouTube

martin skrzetuszewski <martinskrz@...>
 

Hi All,
Sorry if this has been posted before, but this is a 22-minute-plus film of Southern Railway freight operations after dieselisation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyVfXtrylqs

The Youtube posting is poor quality and there are breaks in it but it is worth the viewing. The film is included in a Clear Block DVD, Vignettes of the SOUTHERN RAILWAY - Volume 1:

http://www.clearblockdvd.com/vignettes-of-the-santa-fe--volume-1.html

Enjoy!
Best regards,
Martin Skrzetuszewski


What was a wheel stick used for?

Don Strack
 

Mel Johnson's blog about scanned Union Pacific drawings poses this
question. What was a wheel stick used for?

http://theoldmachinist.wordpress.com/2011/12/11/what-was-a-wheel-stick-used-for/

The drawing in question (from 1924) shows a stand used to hold a wheel
stick, and shows a wheel stick sitting in the stand.

I have seen a jacking bar used to spot rail cars, that is placed at
the jucture between the car wheel and the rail head, and the car was
moved with a downward prying action. But I don't think that this was
what a wheel stick was used for.

I looked in several Car Builder dictionaries and cyclopedias, but
nothing is listed. I have several railroad-related books from Google
Books (downloaded before they changed their policy), and they don't
show such a device.

Anyone?

Don Strack


Re: GBW 22000 to 22028 roofs

Mark Mathu
 

My apologies... ignore my question. I meant it for the [MFCL] list.

GBW 22000 to 22028 were 50' RBLs built by North American Car Corp.
approx 1966; does anyone know what type of roofs they had (presumably
Pullman Standard or Stanray)? I wondering in terms of which style of
the HO Athearn 50' NACC Box Car is a closer match. Sorry, prototype
photos seems elusive-- all I have is one poor-resolution image which
doesn't doesn't include roof details.


GBW 22000 to 22028 roofs

Mark Mathu
 

GBW 22000 to 22028 were 50' RBLs built by North American Car Corp. approx 1966; does anyone know what type of roofs they had (presumably Pullman Standard or Stanray)? I wondering in terms of which style of the HO Athearn 50' NACC Box Car is a closer match. Sorry, prototype photos seems elusive-- all I have is one poor-resolution image which doesn't doesn't include roof details.
__________
Mark Mathu
Whitefish Bay, Wis.
The Green Bay Route: http://www.greenbayroute.com/


Re: 5th Update Official list of Shake N Take 2012

Greg Martin
 

Here is the Fifth update:

Folks here is the official list as of just about #PM PST:

Primary List:
1. Rich Hanke
2. Rick Devlin
3. Armand Premo
4. Denny Anspach
5. John Cantlay
6. Jerry Glow
7. Roger Hinman
8. Schuyler Larabee
9. John Greedy
10. Al Brown
11. Larry Sexton
12. Richard Berry
13. Craig Zeni
14. Charles Hosteler
15. Mike Brock
16. Josh Baakko
17. Ray Price
18. Dave Husey
19. Lindsay Raley
20. Mont Switzer
21. Ray Smit
22. Harry Herfurth
23. Brian Carlson
24.Tom Madden

Alternate List for Handouts:

1. Be Hom
2. Bill Welch
3. Bill McCoy
4. Andy Carlson
5. Tony Thompson
6. Dan Smith
7. Dave Orr
8. Ed Minns
9. Steve Hile


If you are not on this list there will be an opportiunity to make the list at the registration desk when you arrive; however, we have one slot left. There is also room for alternates who are looking for handouts.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

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

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

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


Re: UTLX X-3 Tankcar (was: Happy Hopper Time)

David Sieber
 

--- On STMFC, Jeff Aley wrote: Wow! Now I suppose a plastic UTLX X-3 will be next!

Jeff, afraid I'm not holding my breath for that one. As several realist-pessimists have noted, UTLX X-3s were nearly all dull black cars built for just one owner with a minimalist (albeit yellow) lettering scheme; hardly anything to stand out as a "must have" to the general buyer - or to a plastic firm's Marketing Department. Additionally, those boring UTLX X-3s were manufactured in two distinct frame lengths and two tank diameters for three different capacities: 38ft long frame with either 10kgal or small diameter 8kgal tank, and 32ft short frame with large diameter 8kgal or small diameter 6.5kgal tank. So, which should a plastic manufacturer choose?

However, the discerning modeler emphasizes to manufacturer reps that UTLX had the largest tank car fleet in the steam and transition era, over 41,000 tankers in 1948, most of which were their own X-3 design, THE most numerous tankcar in the classic era. The optimist notes that there are increasing precedents among various manufacturers offering unique one-owner freightcars which were built in significant quantities. Moreover, several plastic firms have done multiple versions of common tankcars: IMRC did the ACF type 27 with both 8kgal and 10kgal tanks, while P2k did the ACF type 21 with both 8kgal and 10kgal tanks, plus an insulated tank; also, IMRC is now offering the RC welded tank car. Yes, most UTLX X-3s had plain yellow-on-black paint and lettering (although some small diameter 8kgal tanks were painted aluminum with red Skellysolve lessee lettering); however, by judicious selection of tankcar frame, that frame could also be used for X-4 insulated and X-5 pressurized tanks, many of which had billboard lessee lettering that might be of greater interest to the general purchaser, as well as prototype modelers. We can still hope ...

Then again, I'd really like to see a state-of-the-art General American 8kgal tankcar (multiple owners and interesting paint schemes!) to round out and improve upon my small fleet of 60-year-old Athearn metal short tankcars (never offered in plastic, to my knowledge).

Dave Sieber, Reno NV


Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

np328
 

As an NP modeler, I am very happy that these are coming out. About the pricing, I recall being quite young and those Athearn blue box cars were - a few hours wages for the then teenage me. Forty years later these cars are... a few hours of wages. And I am hoping, much more accurate to boot.

Yes, it would be nice to be able to order ten packs as I do see a need for the area I'm modeling.

Mike regarding gons vs hoppers on the NP. An April 10, 1950 letter I have shows 3,814 gons owned by the NP. However 4,509 hoppers were also listed. Yes the gons at one time were more common however by the 1950's hoppers were strongly trending to be the dominant open top car on the NP. James Dick - St. Paul

--- In STMFC@..., Michael Seitz <mikefrommontana@...> wrote:
A buck a scale foot? WOW.
Now, that's just the state of things today (I guess) but I rather wish that Accurail had done this car, at least I'd have some interest in replacing my Athearn fleet, but not at $39.00 a pop. I model NP, so the car is not the most common in their fleet, but I rather feel for those eastern coal road modelers.
Don't suppose Intermountain would be willing to sell 10 pack "bulk box" kits at a more reasonable price point? Well, it's a thought.
Being cheap in Montana....
Michael Seitz
Missoula MT
____________________________________________________________
LifeLock® Official Site
Identity Theft Can Happen to Anyone So Get Protection with LifeLock.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ee6756e6a82ab2a854st06duc


Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad

thmsdmpsy
 

Al, I can't imagine any railroad allowing anybody out on their mainline without a track warrant.  I know I've received grief just blue flagging something on a siding even near a Class I mainline.  Somehow, I'm thinking from what the old heads told me when I got started that the rules haven't changed appreciably, irregardless of which alphabet was issuing them.  Tom Dempsey



________________________________
From: "water.kresse@..." <water.kresse@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 12:53 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad


 


With that definition, when a little GE pushes four loaded grain covered hoppers out onto the mainline and spots them on a siding for pickup, the grainry becomes a common carrier?

Mining railroads ran dirty passenger cars to transport their workers to and from mainline depots . . . picking some up at shelters along the way.  Does that make them a common-carrier?

Al Kresse

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

From: "Thomas Dempsey" <thmsdmpsy@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 3:28:14 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Definition of what make a common carrier railroad  vs a product specific railroad

If your "train" never leaves your property, than it doesn't have to comply with title 49 regulations.  As soon as you leave the company tracks (even one inch), or pick up a paying passenger, you have become essentially a common carrier.  I had this discussion once or twice in a previous career with private owners, and I'm sure we can find exceptions, but in general this should cover the question.  A common carrier also has to comply with ICC, FRA, etcetera regulations and also generally, but not necessarily, AAR standards.  Tom Dempsey

________________________________
 From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 11:24 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Definition of what make a common carrier railroad  vs a product specific railroad
 

 

Also, a common carrier could "sign up" for published tariffs, i.e.
it could bid on traffic as a competitor and solicit routings over its
tracks. Since a lot of safety regulations came from states, why would
they exempt non-common carriers from those regulations? A privately
owned train can kill or maim as easily as any others.

Tim O'Connor

A common carrier accepts certain obligations, including serving
all customers equally, no matter how they show up. Obviously a company
short line would not want and could not meet such an obligation.
The upside to those obligations might be the reason for accepting common
carrier status.  As I understand it, such "niceties" like the ability to
use eminent domain to acquire land rights, or the rights to cross public
roadways at grade, were primarily available to common carrier railroads
only.

Of note to some of us: some of the rules and regulations applying to train
crew requirements, boiler inspections, and other "safety" items were not
always applicable to the company-owned non-common-carrier line.

My prototype (the Washington Idaho & Montana) ran as a common carrier road,
but connected to many different woods lines run by the Potlatch Lumber
Company (who also owned & operated the WI&M).  Hours of service laws didn't
apply to the woods crews, nor did the stringent FRA inspections.  "If it
moved, it ran" was more or less the rule of the day.   These woods engines
could occasionally run on the WI&M line, but woods-service cars were not
likely kept up to interchange quality to go beyond the WI&M.

david d zuhn  Saint Paul Bridge & Terminal Ry.
zoo @ stpaulterminal.org
 

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

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




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


Re: railroad movie

Tim O'Connor
 

Google for it, there's more information out there. Starring Harry Carrey!

It is with great humility that I find myself in a position to correct one of the original "rivet counters" but technically speaking Al this movie is scheduled for Thursday morning at 1:30 AM.

Bill Welch


Next Wednesday morning at 1;30 am ET TCM is showing the 1924 film Roaring Rails. Not much is known about the film with only one review on IMDb. Al Westerfield


Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad

Cyril Durrenberger
 

I do not claim to be an expert on these matters, but as I understand it, I think what Dennis wrote is correct.  In Texas there were a number of logging railroads that ran their log trains on the "common carrier" railroads.  I think that common carrier rates were subject to regulation by the ICC (or state railroad commission for transportation within the state), but other carriers, such as the logging railroads were not subject to this rate regulation.  The files of the Texas Railroad Commission have many letters requesting rates for moving items within the state, that were subject to the ICC. 

Many of the larger logging railroads in Texas had their own private logging lines to haul the logs from the cutting areas to the sawmill, and had a common carrier that hauled the products to an interchange with a larger common carrier.

Examples that come to mind are the Southern Pine Lumber Company.  They had extensive logging operations with their own logging company to bring logs to the sawmills at Diboll, Texas.  During some time periods they ran log trains over various common carriers. They also owned the Texas Southeastern that carried the products to the larger common carriers, in this case the HE&WT at Diboll or the Cotton Belt in Lufkin.  Some equipment was lettered for the SPLCo and some for the TSE.  For many years the TSE ran passenger trains along their route from Diboll to Lufkin.  The SPLCo also hauled employees to their logging sites on their logging railroad in passenger cars lettered for the SPLCo.

The W. T. Carter Lumber Company had extensive trackage for log hauling (and used link and pin couplers until the last) and the common carrier Moscow, Camden and San Augustine that was a common carrier to haul the products from Camden to Moscow (6 miles).  For many years they ran a mixed train and one could purchase tickets for the 6 mile ride in their wood combine from Camden to Moscow or the reverse.  There were several other examples, but there is little reason to list them here.

So it is not clear to me exactly what federal regulations applied to the logging lines, eg the use of link and pin couplers into the 1950's.  Their log cars had no air brakes.

The right of eminent domain was an important aspect of being a common carrier. At least in Texas, during the early years, it is my understanding that common carrier railroads had to supply passenger service along the route.  So if they wanted eminent domain, they had to supply passenger service.

Cyril Durrenberger

--- On Mon, 12/12/11, water.kresse@... <water.kresse@...> wrote:

From: water.kresse@... <water.kresse@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad
To: STMFC@...
Date: Monday, December 12, 2011, 3:07 PM
















 













Dennis,



This is starting to make a lot more sense than the over-generalized definitions. 



Al



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



From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...>

To: STMFC@...

Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:26:52 PM

Subject: [STMFC] Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad  vs a product specific railroad



--- In STMFC@..., water.kresse@... wrote:

With that definition, when a little GE pushes four loaded grain covered hoppers out onto the mainline and spots them on a siding for pickup, the grainry becomes a common carrier?


What railroad allows an industrial out on their "mainline" these days? Seems to me, most these operations are protected by locked derails so the yokels at the elevator can't let something loose and cause a wreck that the railroad would be responsible for.



Mining railroads ran dirty passenger cars to transport their workers to and from mainline depots . . . picking some up at shelters along the way.  Does that make them a common-carrier?


If they ran the train exclusively for their own employees (show your underground tag and ride for free) no. If they sold tickets to the general public, yes.



The basic definition of a common carrier, still used today in the trucking industry, is hauling for hire. If you exclusively haul loads you own, you are not a common carrier. If you solicit freight for back haul, you are.



It seems to me that in the railroad world, common carrier status was something that had to be filed for with the state. It gave the company certain advantages, such as the right of eminent domain as someone mentioned, but charged them with operating service "for the public convenience" if I remember the phrase correctly.



In the earlier part of the twentieth century, it was rather common for industrial lines to negotiate trackage rights over a connecting common carrier railroad; northern Wisconsin was full of logging lines that did this. The equipment that went onto the common carrier track had to meet the safety regulations that Congress had charged the ICC with administering, and the crews had to be qualified by the railroad they ran over, but this did not make the industrial line a common carrier, since it did not solicit other freight business, and only hauled material it owned. Some logging lines had only PART of their operations organized as a common carrier, normally the outbound side from mill to railroad connection. This allowed them to participate in the freight rate, in effect getting paid to haul their own freight. This was advantageous under the tariff structure in use during the twentieth century until the Staggers Act of 1980 changed everything, because the
originating and terminating roads received a proportionately larger share of the freight rate that the line haul roads.



Since Stagger everything is different, so there is no use using current day examples to try to explain past practices.



Dennis



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


Re: railroad movie

Bill Welch
 

It is with great humility that I find myself in a position to correct one of the original "rivet counters" but technically speaking Al this movie is scheduled for Thursday morning at 1:30 AM.

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@..., "Al and Patricia Westerfield" <westerfield@...> wrote:

Next Wednesday morning at 1;30 am ET TCM is showing the 1924 film Roaring Rails. Not much is known about the film with only one review on IMDb. Al Westerfield




Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

Todd Horton
 

Ed, I noticed that the Erie sold off a few lots of these cars, was this because of the dwindling coal traffic?  Todd Horton


From: Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 5:56 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?


 

On Dec 12, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

I don't know but I'm guessing the model is a 10'5" high, 2081 cuft
alternate-standard design. This size alt-std car was purchased by
BAR (angle gussets), C&I, C&O, CRR, ERIE, Montour, M&StL, NKP, NP,
P&S. The C&O bought huge numbers of them with various ends.

*ATSF 180800-180999 2191cuft 10' 9" Enterprise door locks

C&O 133000-133499 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
CRR 47000- 47599 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
ERIE 27500- 27749 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks
M 18000- 18299 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
NKP 33075- 33324 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks notched oval end
NP 70200- 70399 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks National Type B trucks

*WLE 61000- 61499 2221cuft 10'10" Wine door locks

* stand-ins
Tim and others interested,
I've had the privilege of reviewing the preliminary tooling design as
it developed, and it looks outstanding. Although not stated in the IM
release, the models will also have prototypical interiors that show the
offset sides and U-section side stakes for accurate scale
representations when running as empties. There are two versions of
models included in the current IM release.

One version is based on drawings of NP prototype cars 70200-70899,
built by AC&F and GATC in 1940-41. The cars had "flat-top" ends with
vertical angles supporting the ends that extended from the end sills to
the top chords. The cars measured 10'-5" from the rail to the top of
the sides. Other roads having cars of this type were Erie 26500-27749
(P-S or GATC, 1940-1941), L&M 1000-1299 (GATC, 1941-1942), C&O
300060-300314 (255 cars, ex-Erie purchased ca. 1956), and P&S 5800-5999
(200 cars, ex-Erie purchased ca. 1960).

Roads having cars of similar appearance that were 3" to 5" taller
include ATSF 180800-180999 (GATC, 3-41), Erie 28600-28899 (GSC, 7-47),
P&WV 6700-6799 and 1-600 (ACF and PSC, 4-47 and 2-49, respectively),
and WLE 61000-64399 (5 builders, 1936 to 1947). The WLE cars received
NKP reporting marks during the 1950s.

There were other cars having the same sides and "flat-top" ends but
with a different end arrangement with outward-facing channels that
extended from the end sills to the bottom of the end sheets. Tim
alluded to some of them. Roads having these features included C&I
(1936-1937), Erie (1934), M&StL (1936), and P&S (ex-Erie, 500 cars
purchased 2nd hand ca. 1951). The L&A (series 4001-4050) also had cars
of this type, but photos have been elusive so I haven't been able to
confirm the end arrangement.

The other InterMountain version is based on drawings of C&O and CRR
prototype cars built from 1939 to early 1942. These cars had
symmetrical radial (arched/oval) ends with vertical angles extending
from the end sills to the radial top. C&O had 4,900 such cars in series
50000-51999 (ACF, P-S, GATC, 1941-1942), 132500-133899 (P-S and ACF,
1937 and 1940), and 134000-135499 (P-S, RSC, GATC, 1939). CRR owned 600
cars in series 47000-47599 (ACF, 7-37). Montour and NKP also owned the
cars: M 18000-18299 (P-S, 7-41), and NKP 33000-33324 (P-S and ACF, 3-37
and 3-42, respectively).

It's my understanding that other versions including the later
asymmetrical radial ends having "notches" above the end ladders are
being considered in a future release. The notched radial ends will be
correct for nearly 3,000 C&O and 500 NKP cars built from 5-42 to 1946
as well as a few other users having small quantities. Two such cars
were purchased from GATC by The Ohio State University (series
1003-1004?) in 9-46 apparently for servicing a campus power plant. The
history of these cars is not known, so if anyone is familiar with these
cars and their usage, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Like many of you, I shall look forward to the release of these new
50-ton hopper cars from InterMountain.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins

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




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


Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

Tim O'Connor
 

Scott

Ahem. While expensive relative to blue box kits of years past,
freight cars costing $20 to over a hundred dollars have become
the norm in the hobby in the last 10 years. Some Accurail RTR
models list at $30! These hoppers are pretty much in line with
that trend -- less than Athearn's next run of airslides (@$50)
and Kadee's offset hoppers (@$43). And it's only 2x Athearn's
current RTR price for their 2-bay offset hoppers!

Tim O'Connor

Yes, this is especially good news for someone who models Milwaukee or Minneapolis or Kansas City, and has a photo of ONE C&O car loaded with metallurgical coal and has always wanted to do a GOOD model of it!
Scott Pitzer


Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad

water.kresse@...
 

Dennis,



This is starting to make a lot more sense than the over-generalized definitions. 


Al

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


From: "soolinehistory" <destorzek@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Monday, December 12, 2011 4:26:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad  vs a product specific railroad

--- In STMFC@..., water.kresse@... wrote:

With that definition, when a little GE pushes four loaded grain covered hoppers out onto the mainline and spots them on a siding for pickup, the grainry becomes a common carrier?
What railroad allows an industrial out on their "mainline" these days? Seems to me, most these operations are protected by locked derails so the yokels at the elevator can't let something loose and cause a wreck that the railroad would be responsible for.

Mining railroads ran dirty passenger cars to transport their workers to and from mainline depots . . . picking some up at shelters along the way.  Does that make them a common-carrier?
If they ran the train exclusively for their own employees (show your underground tag and ride for free) no. If they sold tickets to the general public, yes.

The basic definition of a common carrier, still used today in the trucking industry, is hauling for hire. If you exclusively haul loads you own, you are not a common carrier. If you solicit freight for back haul, you are.

It seems to me that in the railroad world, common carrier status was something that had to be filed for with the state. It gave the company certain advantages, such as the right of eminent domain as someone mentioned, but charged them with operating service "for the public convenience" if I remember the phrase correctly.

In the earlier part of the twentieth century, it was rather common for industrial lines to negotiate trackage rights over a connecting common carrier railroad; northern Wisconsin was full of logging lines that did this. The equipment that went onto the common carrier track had to meet the safety regulations that Congress had charged the ICC with administering, and the crews had to be qualified by the railroad they ran over, but this did not make the industrial line a common carrier, since it did not solicit other freight business, and only hauled material it owned. Some logging lines had only PART of their operations organized as a common carrier, normally the outbound side from mill to railroad connection. This allowed them to participate in the freight rate, in effect getting paid to haul their own freight. This was advantageous under the tariff structure in use during the twentieth century until the Staggers Act of 1980 changed everything, because the originating and terminating roads received a proportionately larger share of the freight rate that the line haul roads.

Since Stagger everything is different, so there is no use using current day examples to try to explain past practices.

Dennis



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


Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

Ed Hawkins
 

On Dec 12, 2011, at 1:17 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

I don't know but I'm guessing the model is a 10'5" high, 2081 cuft
alternate-standard design. This size alt-std car was purchased by
BAR (angle gussets), C&I, C&O, CRR, ERIE, Montour, M&StL, NKP, NP,
P&S. The C&O bought huge numbers of them with various ends.

*ATSF 180800-180999 2191cuft 10' 9" Enterprise door locks

C&O 133000-133499 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
CRR 47000- 47599 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
ERIE 27500- 27749 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks
M 18000- 18299 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks oval end
NKP 33075- 33324 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks notched oval end
NP 70200- 70399 2081cuft 10' 5" Wine door locks National Type B trucks

*WLE 61000- 61499 2221cuft 10'10" Wine door locks

* stand-ins
Tim and others interested,
I've had the privilege of reviewing the preliminary tooling design as
it developed, and it looks outstanding. Although not stated in the IM
release, the models will also have prototypical interiors that show the
offset sides and U-section side stakes for accurate scale
representations when running as empties. There are two versions of
models included in the current IM release.

One version is based on drawings of NP prototype cars 70200-70899,
built by AC&F and GATC in 1940-41. The cars had "flat-top" ends with
vertical angles supporting the ends that extended from the end sills to
the top chords. The cars measured 10'-5" from the rail to the top of
the sides. Other roads having cars of this type were Erie 26500-27749
(P-S or GATC, 1940-1941), L&M 1000-1299 (GATC, 1941-1942), C&O
300060-300314 (255 cars, ex-Erie purchased ca. 1956), and P&S 5800-5999
(200 cars, ex-Erie purchased ca. 1960).

Roads having cars of similar appearance that were 3" to 5" taller
include ATSF 180800-180999 (GATC, 3-41), Erie 28600-28899 (GSC, 7-47),
P&WV 6700-6799 and 1-600 (ACF and PSC, 4-47 and 2-49, respectively),
and WLE 61000-64399 (5 builders, 1936 to 1947). The WLE cars received
NKP reporting marks during the 1950s.

There were other cars having the same sides and "flat-top" ends but
with a different end arrangement with outward-facing channels that
extended from the end sills to the bottom of the end sheets. Tim
alluded to some of them. Roads having these features included C&I
(1936-1937), Erie (1934), M&StL (1936), and P&S (ex-Erie, 500 cars
purchased 2nd hand ca. 1951). The L&A (series 4001-4050) also had cars
of this type, but photos have been elusive so I haven't been able to
confirm the end arrangement.

The other InterMountain version is based on drawings of C&O and CRR
prototype cars built from 1939 to early 1942. These cars had
symmetrical radial (arched/oval) ends with vertical angles extending
from the end sills to the radial top. C&O had 4,900 such cars in series
50000-51999 (ACF, P-S, GATC, 1941-1942), 132500-133899 (P-S and ACF,
1937 and 1940), and 134000-135499 (P-S, RSC, GATC, 1939). CRR owned 600
cars in series 47000-47599 (ACF, 7-37). Montour and NKP also owned the
cars: M 18000-18299 (P-S, 7-41), and NKP 33000-33324 (P-S and ACF, 3-37
and 3-42, respectively).

It's my understanding that other versions including the later
asymmetrical radial ends having "notches" above the end ladders are
being considered in a future release. The notched radial ends will be
correct for nearly 3,000 C&O and 500 NKP cars built from 5-42 to 1946
as well as a few other users having small quantities. Two such cars
were purchased from GATC by The Ohio State University (series
1003-1004?) in 9-46 apparently for servicing a campus power plant. The
history of these cars is not known, so if anyone is familiar with these
cars and their usage, I would appreciate hearing from you.

Like many of you, I shall look forward to the release of these new
50-ton hopper cars from InterMountain.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


ADMIN: Selling rules on the STMFC

mike brock <brockm@...>
 

The current rules regarding the selling of items on the STMFC are:

"Announcements of frt car associated items for sell are permitted BUT actual
lists of items should be made available from the seller upon request rather
than in the message. Announcements of such sells should be kept at a
minimum. The primary objective of the group is to exchange information
concerning the subject.

Messages regarding the selling of products associated with freight cars as
part of a commercial
enterprise must be sent during the period of noon Friday EST and Saturday
midnight EST.
Each seller is allowed one message unless a correction is needed. Seller
messages MUST include OFF GROUP addresses for replies. Replies by members to
seller messages MUST be OFF GROUP."

Obviously there is no requirement that a seller must produce other messages than selling ones. OTOH, note that selling messages should be kept to a minimum and the subject matter should be associated with frt cars. How close an association? Well...that's what you pay be to decide. If someone decided to announce the sell of a brass UP Big Boy for, say, $200...noting that the prototype pulled steam era frt cars...well, certainly that would be close enough...if the seller sent me the same message privately say 8 hrs earlier. OTOH, if somone wanted to announce the sell of an SDWhatever diesel which pulled frt cars post 1960...well, that would not pass muster...obviously.<G>

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Chad Boas's Monon flatcar

Jim Hayes
 

For those who have tried to build the Monon flatcar, you've probably found
that the locations for the stake pockets are not marked. However, in 2005
Mont Switzer had an article in Mainline Modeler on kitbashing this car.
Included in the article are measurements for exactly where the stake
pockets should go as well as other useful information. If you don't have
this article, Mont has given his permission to share it with those in need.
Write me *OFF LINE* and I'll send you a copy

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon
www.sunshinekits.com


Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

Scott Pitzer
 

Yes, this is especially good news for someone who models Milwaukee or Minneapolis or Kansas City, and has a photo of ONE C&O car loaded with metallurgical coal and has always wanted to do a GOOD model of it!
Scott Pitzer

--- In STMFC@..., Michael Seitz <mikefrommontana@...> wrote:

A buck a scale foot? WOW.

Now, that's just the state of things today (I guess) but I rather wish
that Accurail had done this car, at least I'd have some interest in
replacing my Athearn fleet, but not at $39.00 a pop. I model NP, so
the car is not the most common in their fleet, but I rather feel for
those eastern coal road modelers.

Don't suppose Intermountain would be willing to sell 10 pack "bulk box"
kits at a more reasonable price point? Well, it's a thought.

Being cheap in Montana....

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT
____________________________________________________________
LifeLock® Official Site
Identity Theft Can Happen to Anyone So Get Protection with LifeLock.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ee6756e6a82ab2a854st06duc


Re: Intermountain AAR Alternate Standard 2-bay hoppers?

mikefrommontanan
 

A buck a scale foot? WOW.

Now, that's just the state of things today (I guess) but I rather wish that Accurail had done this car, at least I'd have some interest in replacing my Athearn fleet, but not at $39.00 a pop. I model NP, so the car is not the most common in their fleet, but I rather feel for those eastern coal road modelers.

Don't suppose Intermountain would be willing to sell 10 pack "bulk box" kits at a more reasonable price point? Well, it's a thought.

Being cheap in Montana....

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT
____________________________________________________________
LifeLock® Official Site
Identity Theft Can Happen to Anyone So Get Protection with LifeLock.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4ee6756e6a82ab2a854st06duc


Re: Definition of what make a common carrier railroad vs a product specific railroad

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., water.kresse@... wrote:



With that definition, when a little GE pushes four loaded grain covered hoppers out onto the mainline and spots them on a siding for pickup, the grainry becomes a common carrier?
What railroad allows an industrial out on their "mainline" these days? Seems to me, most these operations are protected by locked derails so the yokels at the elevator can't let something loose and cause a wreck that the railroad would be responsible for.


Mining railroads ran dirty passenger cars to transport their workers to and from mainline depots . . . picking some up at shelters along the way.  Does that make them a common-carrier?
If they ran the train exclusively for their own employees (show your underground tag and ride for free) no. If they sold tickets to the general public, yes.

The basic definition of a common carrier, still used today in the trucking industry, is hauling for hire. If you exclusively haul loads you own, you are not a common carrier. If you solicit freight for back haul, you are.

It seems to me that in the railroad world, common carrier status was something that had to be filed for with the state. It gave the company certain advantages, such as the right of eminent domain as someone mentioned, but charged them with operating service "for the public convenience" if I remember the phrase correctly.

In the earlier part of the twentieth century, it was rather common for industrial lines to negotiate trackage rights over a connecting common carrier railroad; northern Wisconsin was full of logging lines that did this. The equipment that went onto the common carrier track had to meet the safety regulations that Congress had charged the ICC with administering, and the crews had to be qualified by the railroad they ran over, but this did not make the industrial line a common carrier, since it did not solicit other freight business, and only hauled material it owned. Some logging lines had only PART of their operations organized as a common carrier, normally the outbound side from mill to railroad connection. This allowed them to participate in the freight rate, in effect getting paid to haul their own freight. This was advantageous under the tariff structure in use during the twentieth century until the Staggers Act of 1980 changed everything, because the originating and terminating roads received a proportionately larger share of the freight rate that the line haul roads.

Since Stagger everything is different, so there is no use using current day examples to try to explain past practices.

Dennis

91861 - 91880 of 196982