Date   

Re: Exactrail

Joel Holmes <lehighvalley@...>
 

Hi All,

I think Horizon Hobbies has done the same thing.

Joel Holmes

Brian -

Question is; if one manufacturer elects this course, will others follow
?
The pressure to do so will be substantial.

Walthers is the elephant in the room, to some degree ...
They are in the precarious position of distributor and manufacturer.

Another nail in the coffin, with the LHS bearing the brunt of this.

Ron dePierre




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Brian Ehni <behni@...> wrote:

Direct from Exactrail; looks like I'm not going to be buying anything
new
from them�

Hello Brian,

The reports are correct and it is not a rumor or hoax.

As of May 1, 2012, ExactRail will no longer offer a dealer discount and
will
discontinue our dealer network. Hobby stores may continue to purchase
ExactRail products from ExactRail.com at the standard consumer price.

Cost of production has increased considerably for ExactRail over the
last
two years. We have absorbed most of these increases through our margins.
As
we consider the sustainability of these trends, our conclusion is that
the
best solution to serve the consumer is through a more direct model. By
serving our customers directly, we hope to be able to maintain lower
prices.

Dealers will continue to receive a discount through the month of April.

Orders placed in April, including any advanced purchases, will still
receive
the dealer discount.

Our decision to discontinue our dealer distribution network has come
from
much deliberation. We appreciate the dealer�s contribution to our
industry;
we feel that this decision is necessary so that ExactRail may contribute
with them well into the future.

Best regards,

Dave Lotz
Regional Sales Representative
Phone (801) 822-3202


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni








Thickness of gondola sides

Edward
 

I am curious about the thickness of the side panels of composite open cars. I am considering building a model composite gondola from scratch but I am having a problem with the materials I will need. What size scale wood would be appropriate?

When talking about the dimensions of open cars, such as hoppers and gondolas, we as modellers focus on the exterior measurements. A 40 foot car should be 40 scale feet long. But interior measurements seem to get less attention. I would think that commercial manufacturers often have to compromise and make the sides thicker for durability purposes as a scale thickness would probably be too fragile, so I cannot reverse engineer from a model.

But I have not found any discussion of the scale thickness of the walls of open cars. Drawings I have looked at sometimes give the width of the wood side planks (ie 10") but not the thickness. Would the side panels of a composite gondola be 3" thick planks or 4". I am assuming that 2" would be too thin and not stand up to wear and tear on a gondola. But at 4" the car weight would start adding up. Does anyone have any idea how thick a scale wood gondola's sides would be? I am sure construction practices varied a bit by builder and railroad but I suspect that there was probably some standard range of approved measurements.

Forgive me if this has been discussed before but I could not find any discussion about open car wood thickness when I searched in the archives. There was a discussion about flat car floors but I could find nothing about scale sides.

Ed Greason


Re: Exactrail

Charlie Vlk
 

ExactRail has had difficulty with playing well with dealers from the get-go
with several failed attempts at notification of new products and
pre-ordering.



The problem with going direct is that you have to develop the infrastructure
to deal directly with ALL your potential individual customers instead of
using the distributor and dealer network as a primary interface with end
consumers.



The money behind ExactRail comes from the computer software industry. If
they think they can use that model for customer service for Model
Railroaders they are in for a big surprise.



Direct sales may be a viable business model for specialty custom
manufacturers with just-in-time manufacturing models with low inventory
situations but the traditional distribution network (including e-retailers
and non-brick and mortar shops) absorbs a fair percentage of production for
most manufacturers and acts as a reservoir for holding products before they
get to their ultimate home. It is easy to forget that the margin that
wholesalers and retailers get for handling the product benefits both the
manufacturer and the end user.



Charlie Vlk

Railroad Model Resources


Re: Exactrail

gn999gn
 

Brian -

Question is; if one manufacturer elects this course, will others follow ?
The pressure to do so will be substantial.

Walthers is the elephant in the room, to some degree ...
They are in the precarious position of distributor and manufacturer.

Another nail in the coffin, with the LHS bearing the brunt of this.

Ron dePierre

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Brian Ehni <behni@...> wrote:

Direct from Exactrail; looks like I'm not going to be buying anything new
from themŠ

Hello Brian,

The reports are correct and it is not a rumor or hoax.

As of May 1, 2012, ExactRail will no longer offer a dealer discount and will
discontinue our dealer network. Hobby stores may continue to purchase
ExactRail products from ExactRail.com at the standard consumer price.

Cost of production has increased considerably for ExactRail over the last
two years. We have absorbed most of these increases through our margins. As
we consider the sustainability of these trends, our conclusion is that the
best solution to serve the consumer is through a more direct model. By
serving our customers directly, we hope to be able to maintain lower prices.

Dealers will continue to receive a discount through the month of April.

Orders placed in April, including any advanced purchases, will still receive
the dealer discount.

Our decision to discontinue our dealer distribution network has come from
much deliberation. We appreciate the dealer¹s contribution to our industry;
we feel that this decision is necessary so that ExactRail may contribute
with them well into the future.

Best regards,

Dave Lotz
Regional Sales Representative
Phone (801) 822-3202


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni





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


Exactrail

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

Direct from Exactrail; looks like I'm not going to be buying anything new
from themŠ

Hello Brian,

The reports are correct and it is not a rumor or hoax.

As of May 1, 2012, ExactRail will no longer offer a dealer discount and will
discontinue our dealer network. Hobby stores may continue to purchase
ExactRail products from ExactRail.com at the standard consumer price.

Cost of production has increased considerably for ExactRail over the last
two years. We have absorbed most of these increases through our margins. As
we consider the sustainability of these trends, our conclusion is that the
best solution to serve the consumer is through a more direct model. By
serving our customers directly, we hope to be able to maintain lower prices.

Dealers will continue to receive a discount through the month of April.

Orders placed in April, including any advanced purchases, will still receive
the dealer discount.

Our decision to discontinue our dealer distribution network has come from
much deliberation. We appreciate the dealer¹s contribution to our industry;
we feel that this decision is necessary so that ExactRail may contribute
with them well into the future.

Best regards,

Dave Lotz
Regional Sales Representative
Phone (801) 822-3202


Thanks!
--

Brian P. Ehni


Exactrail closes dealer network

Brian Ehni <behni@...>
 

On the Diesel list this morning, two different Exactrail dealers have
reported that Exactrail has shut down their dealer networks, converting to
direct sales only. Apparently, they intend to keep all markup for
themselves. As you might imagine, this appears to be another nail in the
coffin for brick and mortars, as well as their distributors.

I have registered my complaint with Exactrail, and would urge others to do
so as well.


Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Dave Evans wrote:
Mike, Tony, et al,
Could you please elaborate on the traffic volumes being moved using
these operational concepts? Total trains per day, total freight cars
per day over each of these summits?
This seems very inefficient to me - lots of expensive main line
sitting idle for lack of a few more HP. A stalled main line is not
generating ANY revenue.
Dave, I don't know traffic numbers. But remember, no one
PLANNED on a blocked main line. The idea was to have JUST enough
horsepower for the job. This was a widespread idea in American
railroading, since at least the 1920s, as constituting greater
efficiency. If you stalled very many trains, you would probably
replace the trainmaster.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
Tony,

I realize it wouldn't be accepted practice for frequent stalling of trains, but then to my mind the mainline must have been supporting a lower traffic volume than what it could sustain, possibly by a significant amount, if this was tolerated.

I realize I have wandered far afield of STMFC content, so I do not want to get too deep into this, but I am trying to understand the operational consequences to a layout designed to support pseudo-prototypical operations, and especially what the experience of a road crew would be (and the tasks they are expected to accomplish - such as pushing the train ahead).

Specific to the PRR, during the WWII traffic spike, there is some evidence that the PRR worked hard to maintain high average train speeds at key bottlenecks just to meet the traffic demand - and as a result I think they may have been overpowering at least some of the preference freights. One PRR document explicitly limits tonnage on certain high priority trains to ensure higher speeds - I suspect multiple sections were used to stay under the limit, and these trains were often scheduled so they could run on the passenger tracks (2 out of 4 tracks).

The PRR averaged 10,000 freight cars and nearly 100 passenger trains a day over the Allegheny summit (Gallitzin) during many months of WWII, with the peak day being slightly over 12,000 cars and 200+ freight trains, plus the usual passenger traffic (and a huge number of helper moves back to the bottom of the hill - on both sides for freights).

Hence the curiosity in traffic volumes. I am wondering if the volume of traffic per track was unique for the PRR's Allegheny summit.

Dave Evans


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Evans wrote:
Mike, Tony, et al,
Could you please elaborate on the traffic volumes being moved using these operational concepts? Total trains per day, total freight cars per day over each of these summits?
This seems very inefficient to me - lots of expensive main line sitting idle for lack of a few more HP. A stalled main line is not generating ANY revenue.
Dave, I don't know traffic numbers. But remember, no one PLANNED on a blocked main line. The idea was to have JUST enough horsepower for the job. This was a widespread idea in American railroading, since at least the 1920s, as constituting greater efficiency. If you stalled very many trains, you would probably replace the trainmaster.

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: Caboose ladders

Steve SANDIFER
 

I modeled Santa Fe 2128 with reversed ladders from photos taken parked in front of the Emporia, KS, depot.
______________
J. Stephen (Steve) Sandifer
mailto:steve.sandifer@sbcglobal.net
Home: 12027 Mulholland Drive, Meadows Place, TX 77477, 281-568-9918
Office: Southwest Central Church of Christ, 4011 W. Bellfort, Houston, TX 77025, 713-667-9417

----- Original Message -----
From: Andy Sperandeo
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2012 10:09 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Caboose ladders



Hello,
I model the Santa Fe's LA Division, where all the way car ladders were in the "normal" (for the Santa Fe) right-hand location. I've noticed the opposite placement on some Santa Fe way cars and I've been told they were assigned in Colorado, but that's as much as I know. anything I could say about the reason for that would only be speculation, and I'd be glad to hear from someone who knows more about this.
So long,
Andy


Re: Caboose ladders

Andy Sperandeo
 

Hello,
I model the Santa Fe's LA Division, where all the way car ladders were in the "normal" (for the Santa Fe) right-hand location. I've noticed the opposite placement on some Santa Fe way cars and I've been told they were assigned in Colorado, but that's as much as I know. anything I could say about the reason for that would only be speculation, and I'd be glad to hear from someone who knows more about this.
So long,
Andy


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

Tony Thompson writes:

"Santa Fe did not ALWAYS run overpowered trains on Tehachapi, but
when they were going to do so, they would call the SP dispatcher to
find out when the next SP drag was due out, and call their train in
the same direction for 10 minutes earlier."

I believe I have read that UP was guilty of running underpowered trains over
Cajon Pass as well...at least for a time. Not sure of the source...possibly
this was with a passenger train during the steam era. I don't find anything
negative about any of this...just historical info.

Incidentally, I am analyzing my frt conductor book to determine tonnage and
running time between Laramie and Rawlins. It will only be interesting rather
than factual because it is difficult to interpret conductor Fraley's notes
concerning delays due to taking sidings for passenger trains etc. In Mark
Amfahr's article about one day's action there were unexpected
incidents...the hot box failure on the coal drag and wet rail for example.
It does seem, however, in 1949 that UP was assigning power as if the normal
situation would prevail. IOW, they would assign locomotives assuming that
they would benefit from momentum on grades rather than having to start from
a stopped position. I believe that the train sheet source for Mark's article
does not show much double heading WB over Sherman and, yet, we know this
occurred at least in later yrs. The weakness in all of these analytic
studies is that it is like looking through a window into the past. We can
only see a little bit through the window.

Mike Brock
Mike, Tony, et al,

Could you please elaborate on the traffic volumes being moved using these operational concepts? Total trains per day, total freight cars per day over each of these summits?

This seems very inefficient to me - lots of expensive main line sitting idle for lack of a few more HP. A stalled main line is not generating ANY revenue.

Many Thanks,
Dave Evans


Re: BLI's USRA steel car

Craig Zeni
 

On Apr 2, 2012, at 8:34 AM, STMFC@yahoogroups.com wrote:
3a. Re: BLI's USRA steel car
Posted by: "MDelvec952@aol.com" MDelvec952@aol.com railwriter
Date: Sun Apr 1, 2012 11:33 am ((PDT))




Richard is right in that these ends were a little different than those on other roads. I never found out why, as the general arrangement drawings on the DL&W simply refer to the ends as Dreadnaught. I've not yet seen these ends on other railroads, while it seems so unlikely to tool up for 1000 boxcars (2000 ends). In appearance the ridges were a little shallower with flattened tops on the DL&W cars, while the ends of the long ridges and short darts were scalloped toward the corners at about a 30-degree angle rather than a natural curve as are those on the standard dreadnaught end. I've never seen it offered in HO scale.

As you observed, the underframe is not a USRA underframe. Among the differences are the placement of the airbrake components and the orientation of the crossbearers.

I ordered one of the BLI cars as soon as they were announced to see how it would match up with the DL&W car. I have a few Westerfield NYC cars with dreadnaught ends that were also going to become these 47000-series boxcars, another un-started project since going to work for a railroad more than a dozen years ago -- just no time. With some putty and sanding, was hoping to make good end from that in the kit and to cast up a bunch of others.

As mentioned here earlier, the BLI cars are quite nice out of the box. Their weakest detailing is the underframe. As for their use as a stand-in for the DL&W, that depends on how close the modeler wishes to look. The BLI cars would best represent a postwar car. DL&W cars were built with a Hutchins roof, replaced with Murphy after WWII when they got the Phoebe Snow billboard squoze onto the sides, and some got the bolder 1955-era billboard which really looks crammed on these small cars. The models have a Murphy roof. The DL&W cars had wooden running boards even after the new roofs. The models have steel. The roping staples on the models are not in the same location as the DL&W cars, which were mounted vertically. The airbrake components on the model aren't in the same positions as the prototype, likely due to the underframe differences. The rivet pattern at the bolster also differs.

I've been meaning to talk to the ELHS model committee to make them aware of these cars to let it decide about offering them in DL&W lettering. They are oh so close. RPM quality? In the words of Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much." With correct running boards and lettering, would anyone here buy one? Eastern-based model railroads would need several as in the steam era these cars were widely circulated. Bob Collins even took a picture of one on Sherman Hill head out behind a 4000.
Mike, many thanks...after the comments about the ends being different I took a closer look and yep, the DL&W ends almost look like the ends of the ridges are planed off at that 30 degree angle. But as a place filler on a layout it could be effective. I can deal easily with the roping staples and running board change. I won't lose a lot of sleep over the underframe either. But for modeling post WWII they'll get me one of the cars for 'the look' I'm after.




Craig Zeni
"Bother", said Pooh as he chambered another round...


Re: BLI's USRA steel car

Bill Welch
 

Why not suggest this to the new owner of Westerfield?!

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, MDelvec952@... wrote:




Richard is right in that these ends were a little different than those on other roads. I never found out why, as the general arrangement drawings on the DL&W simply refer to the ends as Dreadnaught. I've not yet seen these ends on other railroads, while it seems so unlikely to tool up for 1000 boxcars (2000 ends). In appearance the ridges were a little shallower with flattened tops on the DL&W cars, while the ends of the long ridges and short darts were scalloped toward the corners at about a 30-degree angle rather than a natural curve as are those on the standard dreadnaught end. I've never seen it offered in HO scale.

As you observed, the underframe is not a USRA underframe. Among the differences are the placement of the airbrake components and the orientation of the crossbearers.

I ordered one of the BLI cars as soon as they were announced to see how it would match up with the DL&W car. I have a few Westerfield NYC cars with dreadnaught ends that were also going to become these 47000-series boxcars, another un-started project since going to work for a railroad more than a dozen years ago -- just no time. With some putty and sanding, was hoping to make good end from that in the kit and to cast up a bunch of others.

As mentioned here earlier, the BLI cars are quite nice out of the box. Their weakest detailing is the underframe. As for their use as a stand-in for the DL&W, that depends on how close the modeler wishes to look. The BLI cars would best represent a postwar car. DL&W cars were built with a Hutchins roof, replaced with Murphy after WWII when they got the Phoebe Snow billboard squoze onto the sides, and some got the bolder 1955-era billboard which really looks crammed on these small cars. The models have a Murphy roof. The DL&W cars had wooden running boards even after the new roofs. The models have steel. The roping staples on the models are not in the same location as the DL&W cars, which were mounted vertically. The airbrake components on the model aren't in the same positions as the prototype, likely due to the underframe differences. The rivet pattern at the bolster also differs.

I've been meaning to talk to the ELHS model committee to make them aware of these cars to let it decide about offering them in DL&W lettering. They are oh so close. RPM quality? In the words of Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much." With correct running boards and lettering, would anyone here buy one? Eastern-based model railroads would need several as in the steam era these cars were widely circulated. Bob Collins even took a picture of one on Sherman Hill head out behind a 4000.

....Mike Del Vecchio


-----Original Message-----
From: David <jaydeet2001@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: BLI's USRA steel car




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@> wrote:
Craig, the Lackawanna's '20s steel box cars were, indeed, very
close in design to those of the NYC. The big difference is the
ends; the DL&W cars had a unique version of the Dreadnaught end
which was quite different in appearance from those on the later NYC
cars, and AFAIK that end has never been done in HO scale.
What was so different about it? Looking at the photos in RPC 21, the end looks like a typical late-20s 4-4 Dreadnaught, same as on the later NYC boxes. What made the Lackawanna cars different was their use of what seems to be the ARA underframe (reflected in the 2x2 rivet pattern at the bolsters) and the Hutchins peaked roof.

David Thompson







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


Re: BLI's USRA steel car

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 1, 2012, at 11:33 AM, MDelvec952@aol.com wrote:
Richard is right in that these ends were a little different than
those on other roads. I never found out why, as the general
arrangement drawings on the DL&W simply refer to the ends as
Dreadnaught. I've not yet seen these ends on other railroads,
while it seems so unlikely to tool up for 1000 boxcars (2000 ends).
In appearance the ridges were a little shallower with flattened
tops on the DL&W cars, while the ends of the long ridges and short
darts were scalloped toward the corners at about a 30-degree angle
rather than a natural curve as are those on the standard
dreadnaught end. I've never seen it offered in HO scale.

As you observed, the underframe is not a USRA underframe. Among the
differences are the placement of the airbrake components and the
orientation of the crossbearers.

I ordered one of the BLI cars as soon as they were announced to see
how it would match up with the DL&W car. I have a few Westerfield
NYC cars with dreadnaught ends that were also going to become these
47000-series boxcars, another un-started project since going to
work for a railroad more than a dozen years ago -- just no time.
With some putty and sanding, was hoping to make good end from that
in the kit and to cast up a bunch of others.

As mentioned here earlier, the BLI cars are quite nice out of the
box. Their weakest detailing is the underframe. As for their use as
a stand-in for the DL&W, that depends on how close the modeler
wishes to look. The BLI cars would best represent a postwar car.
DL&W cars were built with a Hutchins roof, replaced with Murphy
after WWII when they got the Phoebe Snow billboard squoze onto the
sides, and some got the bolder 1955-era billboard which really
looks crammed on these small cars. The models have a Murphy roof.
The DL&W cars had wooden running boards even after the new roofs.
The models have steel. The roping staples on the models are not in
the same location as the DL&W cars, which were mounted vertically.
The airbrake components on the model aren't in the same positions
as the prototype, likely due to the underframe differences. The
rivet pattern at the bolster also differs.
Thanks a bunch, Mike. You've done a fine job of specifying the
differences between the Lackawanna cars and the BLI models, a job I
was going to do but hadn't yet found time for. Reworking the models
to accurately represent the DL&W cars may well be possible, but those
ends are still a problem. Incidentally, the Rock Island also had a
series of single sheathed box cars with that odd style of Dreadnaught
end, so it wasn't unique to the DL&W cars, but those are the only two
examples I know of.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: BLI's USRA steel car

MDelvec952
 

Richard is right in that these ends were a little different than those on other roads. I never found out why, as the general arrangement drawings on the DL&W simply refer to the ends as Dreadnaught. I've not yet seen these ends on other railroads, while it seems so unlikely to tool up for 1000 boxcars (2000 ends). In appearance the ridges were a little shallower with flattened tops on the DL&W cars, while the ends of the long ridges and short darts were scalloped toward the corners at about a 30-degree angle rather than a natural curve as are those on the standard dreadnaught end. I've never seen it offered in HO scale.

As you observed, the underframe is not a USRA underframe. Among the differences are the placement of the airbrake components and the orientation of the crossbearers.

I ordered one of the BLI cars as soon as they were announced to see how it would match up with the DL&W car. I have a few Westerfield NYC cars with dreadnaught ends that were also going to become these 47000-series boxcars, another un-started project since going to work for a railroad more than a dozen years ago -- just no time. With some putty and sanding, was hoping to make good end from that in the kit and to cast up a bunch of others.

As mentioned here earlier, the BLI cars are quite nice out of the box. Their weakest detailing is the underframe. As for their use as a stand-in for the DL&W, that depends on how close the modeler wishes to look. The BLI cars would best represent a postwar car. DL&W cars were built with a Hutchins roof, replaced with Murphy after WWII when they got the Phoebe Snow billboard squoze onto the sides, and some got the bolder 1955-era billboard which really looks crammed on these small cars. The models have a Murphy roof. The DL&W cars had wooden running boards even after the new roofs. The models have steel. The roping staples on the models are not in the same location as the DL&W cars, which were mounted vertically. The airbrake components on the model aren't in the same positions as the prototype, likely due to the underframe differences. The rivet pattern at the bolster also differs.

I've been meaning to talk to the ELHS model committee to make them aware of these cars to let it decide about offering them in DL&W lettering. They are oh so close. RPM quality? In the words of Maxwell Smart: "Missed it by that much." With correct running boards and lettering, would anyone here buy one? Eastern-based model railroads would need several as in the steam era these cars were widely circulated. Bob Collins even took a picture of one on Sherman Hill head out behind a 4000.

....Mike Del Vecchio

-----Original Message-----
From: David <jaydeet2001@yahoo.com>
To: STMFC <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Mar 31, 2012 8:56 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: BLI's USRA steel car




--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
Craig, the Lackawanna's '20s steel box cars were, indeed, very
close in design to those of the NYC. The big difference is the
ends; the DL&W cars had a unique version of the Dreadnaught end
which was quite different in appearance from those on the later NYC
cars, and AFAIK that end has never been done in HO scale.
What was so different about it? Looking at the photos in RPC 21, the end looks like a typical late-20s 4-4 Dreadnaught, same as on the later NYC boxes. What made the Lackawanna cars different was their use of what seems to be the ARA underframe (reflected in the 2x2 rivet pattern at the bolsters) and the Hutchins peaked roof.

David Thompson







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


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

Mikebrock
 

Tony Thompson writes:

"Santa Fe did not ALWAYS run overpowered trains on Tehachapi, but
when they were going to do so, they would call the SP dispatcher to
find out when the next SP drag was due out, and call their train in
the same direction for 10 minutes earlier."

I believe I have read that UP was guilty of running underpowered trains over Cajon Pass as well...at least for a time. Not sure of the source...possibly this was with a passenger train during the steam era. I don't find anything negative about any of this...just historical info.

Incidentally, I am analyzing my frt conductor book to determine tonnage and running time between Laramie and Rawlins. It will only be interesting rather than factual because it is difficult to interpret conductor Fraley's notes concerning delays due to taking sidings for passenger trains etc. In Mark Amfahr's article about one day's action there were unexpected incidents...the hot box failure on the coal drag and wet rail for example. It does seem, however, in 1949 that UP was assigning power as if the normal situation would prevail. IOW, they would assign locomotives assuming that they would benefit from momentum on grades rather than having to start from a stopped position. I believe that the train sheet source for Mark's article does not show much double heading WB over Sherman and, yet, we know this occurred at least in later yrs. The weakness in all of these analytic studies is that it is like looking through a window into the past. We can only see a little bit through the window.

Mike Brock


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Chuck Soule wrote:
This philosophic divergence persisted right into the SPSF Kodachrome era, when I lived in Bakersfield. The Santa Fe ran zippy trains over Tehachapi, and the SP ran huge drag freights with distributed power in the middle.

I remember going up to the loop to railfan one day, saw no traffic for a considerable period, and dropped down the hill to the road into Caliente. At the first grade crossing (Beale, I think), a Santa Fe train was stopped shy of the crossing gates, with part of the crew standing on the ground. I asked what was going on, and they pointed up the hill at the tunnels at Cliff, where an SP train was stopped dead. The Santa Fe crew said the SP had underpowered their train again, and not only stalled it out, but burned up an engine. They had the entire main blocked up tight. From the way the SF folks were cussing, it obviously was a common occurrence.
Santa Fe did not ALWAYS run overpowered trains on Tehachapi, but when they were going to do so, they would call the SP dispatcher to find out when the next SP drag was due out, and call their train in the same direction for 10 minutes earlier. Both these points were attested to by SP's Mac Gaddis, when I interviewed him in 1990, and a segment of that interview is on my blog. For those interested, here is a link:

http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/01/san-luis-obispo-operations-5.html

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


B&O, CGW replacement doors

Clark Propst
 

I managed to end up with 5 extra pair of the B&O M-26 and CGW replacement 5 panel Superior doors. If anyone would like them or any please contact me off-list at: cepropst@q.com

I’m sure those you’ve received them will attest to their quality.

Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa

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


Re: How to "model the prototype" - in terms of Ops?

Chuck Soule
 

Tony Thompson wrote:

Most railroads in the steam era used the minimum possible power
on trains as an "efficiency" measure. There were, of course exceptions
(the Santa Fe folks in the audience all have their hands up, yelling
"Me! Me!") but they were exceptions. My favorite quote on this subject
is from SP's formidable president in this period, D.J. Russell, who,
when asked about running faster freight trains, said "What for? None
of our eastward connections do so, and we would be wasting the
resources it takes to run faster."
This philosophic divergence persisted right into the SPSF Kodachrome era, when I lived in Bakersfield. The Santa Fe ran zippy trains over Tehachapi, and the SP ran huge drag freights with distributed power in the middle.

I remember going up to the loop to railfan one day, saw no traffic for a considerable period, and dropped down the hill to the road into Caliente. At the first grade crossing (Beale, I think), a Santa Fe train was stopped shy of the crossing gates, with part of the crew standing on the ground. I asked what was going on, and they pointed up the hill at the tunnels at Cliff, where an SP train was stopped dead. The Santa Fe crew said the SP had underpowered their train again, and not only stalled it out, but burned up an engine. They had the entire main blocked up tight. From the way the SF folks were cussing, it obviously was a common occurrence.

Chuck Soule


Looking for Walthers UNDECORATED Troop Sleepers

Max Robin
 

Hi all:



I'm looking to obtain 3 Walthers (unopened) undecorated Troop Sleepers
#932-4850. The WM purchased 10 of these cars from the government
specifically to be used as cabooses, hence my need for them. Any help
orthoughts on where I igh find these would be greatly appreciated. I'm
willing to pay the original list price + ??? and all shipping and handling
cost.



Thanks for your patience.



Max Robin

email: m_robin@cheatriver.com <== [m underscore robin at cheat river dot
com, no spaces, all lower case]



smail: Max S. Robin, PE

Cheat River Engineering Inc.

P. O. Box 289

Denville, NJ 07834



voice: 973-945-5007 (8:00am-10:00pm M-F, 11:00am-10:00pm WE, Eastern)

76281 - 76300 of 184368