Date   

Re: C&BT reefers

Tim O'Connor
 



Caveat Emptor also applies to "advice". More than one model has gone into
production based on seriously questionable advice. Heck, just look at a photo
of the prototype - that should have stopped Dick in his tracks!




Ben,

I used the term in reference to the fact that those individual(s) had the opportunity to tell Dick that there were issues with the cars but did not.  In fact, told him they were good to go and then that same individual(s) harshly criticized the models they said were accurate and good to go into production.  I don't know how else such behavior can be described.  I am not speaking of are not those who did the how to fix it articles.

Rich Orr



Ben Hom wrote:

"Tossed Dick under the bus" seems a bit strong as the models had these deficiencies plus the poor detail parts, both of which were covered at the time in magazine reviews by Tony Thompson and Andy Sperandeo.  Andy's review was comprehensive and provided instruction on how to correct the worst problems.  We complain on this list about softball reviews in the magazines, so if honestly describing how to fix shortcomings is tossing a manufacturer under the bus, it might be time to question why you're on this list.


Re: C&BT reefers

Keith Jordan
 

As one who was involved with the design and development of the C&BT SFRD reefers, I feel the need to clarify some statements made earlier by folks who were not involved.

I’m not aware of anyone, particularly “ATSF experts,” who “okayed” the model then “tossed Dick under the bus.” Dick sent me, as the one who was behind the idea of the kits, the drawings done by his tool and die man, before tooling was cut. I looked at the drawings very carefully and made dozens of notes and corrections in red. Most of the corrections were dimensions and placement of carbody features. I then sent the drawings to Dick for his handling. I never saw roof nor detail drawings.

Dick told me that his tool and die man took umbrage at the many changes/corrections that were deemed necessary and refused to make many of them. Dick then told me that because of his investment with the project he did not feel like alienating the tool and die man. I never heard a word about the cars again.

I first saw the injection-molded carbodies at the NEBW club in New York, where they came from, I don’t know. The side detail was quite good, but the recessed Dreadnaught ends were rendered poorly. The subsequent carbody/end variations were done well. 

A fair review of the cars was written in the (then) Santa Fe Modeler magazine where editor Jay Miller rightly pointed out that the roof was indeed a scale three inches too tall, but the more egregious error was the roof was nine scale inches too wide! Jay showed how to fix it, but it was quite a project only made easier by using a milling machine. I also worked with Randy Anderson and Martin Lofton to produce replacement ends and details in resin.

Dick was never thrown under the bus, but made his own business decisions which ultimately doomed the project. I always remained on good terms with Dick.

I was contacted later by IMRC who broached the idea of doing an SFRD reefer correctly and I worked with them in the same vein to produce a very good product.

Just the facts, ma’am.

Keith Jordan

When production stopped he had plug door bodies already to go but the "overhanging" roof continued to be an issue.  To me, the biggest problem was the roof sat too high.  I don;t know if complete kits were provided for review or not.  I do know they were not assembled.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor timboconnor@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...>
To: STMFC <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sat, Sep 2, 2017 3:59 pm
Subject: [STMFC] re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Rich

I've wondered about this - the BODY and ENDS on his reefers were just fine.
It was the extremely poorly rendered roof that really spoils the model. If I
had seen only the body and ends I would have given them a thumbs up too. It's
a real shame because Dick cut bodies for several different SFRD reefers!

Tim O'Connor

As for the SFRD reefers test shots were provided to ATSF experts who "okayed" the model and then tossed Dick under the bus when they were released.  

Rich Orr


Re: Intro Dates for C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

SUVCWORR@...
 

As of a few months ago the business was still for sale.  He has stock of some models and decals.  He has all the dies.  He was in discussion with a major car producer however their primary interest was in the X29B which was not finished and at that point, discussions ceased.

Dick has had some health issues.  He had a lung transplant several years ago.  Most of his time is now devoted to helping his wife manage her temp agency.

Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: hayden_tom@... [STMFC]
To: STMFC
Sent: Sun, Sep 3, 2017 9:47 am
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Intro Dates for C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits



Does anyone know the status of Dick Schweiger and C&BT? 4 years ago, after seeing some new production product showing up on e-bay, especially from one seller in WA state, I corresponded with him and he was trying to sell the business. He even sent me several sets of new sprues (Tichy, I think) and some decals to use on the kits I owned.    I have not heard from him or about him since then. I still see some "new" product on e-bay, but could be from 4 years ago stock:


http://www.ebay.com/itm/C-BT-Shops-HO-7111-SanFran-Chief-Ship-Travel-Class-Rr33-Rd-4255-/230839839588?hash=item35bf206b64:m:mbViWxIQzYy4dJNKrmL9Z0w


Tom Hayden




Re: URTX and MILW, M&StL, SOO, C G W leased reefers: A Pool Arrangement?

Tony Thompson
 

       Are there numbers out there for dairy product shipping? I think of the upper Midwest as a major source of those products and they would certainly have moved in reefers.

Tony Thompson




Re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

SUVCWORR@...
 

Ben,

I used the term in reference to the fact that those individual(s) had the opportunity to tell Dick that there were issues with the cars but did not.  In fact, told him they were good to go and then that same individual(s) harshly criticized the models they said were accurate and good to go into production.  I don't know how else such behavior can be described.  I am not speaking of are not those who did the how to fix it articles.

Rich Orr



Ben Hom wrote:

"Tossed Dick under the bus" seems a bit strong as the models had these deficiencies plus the poor detail parts, both of which were covered at the time in magazine reviews by Tony Thompson and Andy Sperandeo.  Andy's review was comprehensive and provided instruction on how to correct the worst problems.  We complain on this list about softball reviews in the magazines, so if honestly describing how to fix shortcomings is tossing a manufacturer under the bus, it might be time to question why you're on this list.

Yahoo! Groups


Re: Intro Dates for C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Clark Propst
 

My feeble memory thinks I bought kits from the then defunct IMWX at the CNWHS meet in 92. Meaning they were already offered by Red Caboose?
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa


Re: MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model

devansprr
 

John,

I have mixed eras (SP <> UP) - I thought the SP had rights from Barstow to get to the Central Valley - obviously incorrect.

But the routing explains why the war department picked Yermo for the distribution center - it was the logical point to accumulate WB war materials for the pacific theater. From their the loads could be shipped to either Oakland or southern CA.

Now I am wondering if Marietta, PA was selected for a similar reason - shipments could quickly be sent to New York, Philly, Baltimore or Newport News/Norfolk.

Dave Evans


---In STMFC@..., <northbaylines@...> wrote :

Dave,

UP only had trackage rights into the LA basin. The UP's LA&SL came on to ATSF track at Dagget and left RR west of San Bernardino, I think at Riverside. The Mojave District was Santa Fe only Barstow to Mojave where it used trackage rights on the SP Mojave to Kern Junction, thence Santa Fe into Bakersfield. I've always thought of Barstow as a three way crossroads account the Santa Fe lines and the physical connection to the UP not involved. But you raise a good point that it was the operational interchange point for LA-Salt Lake traffic.

John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA


707-490-9696 


PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736

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

On Sat, 9/2/17, devans1@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: [STMFC] MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model
To: STMFC@...
Date: Saturday, September 2, 2017, 10:49 PM

John,

Thank-you
for the explanation. I am not familiar with California rail
routes. I had forgotten that Barstow was really the junction
of four lines, not just a simple division point. (SF and UP
lines to the east, joint SF/UP west to SF, and SF and UP
lines west to LA.)

Must
have been a hopping place - and not very big to boot.
(Compared to today's BNSF Barstow classification yard,
and the UP yard in Yermo.) Talk about a yard master's
challenge...

Dave Evans





Re: URTX and MILW, M&StL, SOO, CGW leased reefers

Tim O'Connor
 

True, but also remember that perishables traffic peaked AFTER World War II.
So statistics from 1925 may actually understate the traffic in 1945 or later.

Tim O'Connor

The stats I cited are from 1925 Dave, not 1955: there was a far larger mix of regional produce variation back in the good old days of railroading. That's why the IC had 4500 reefers, and also 1800 ventilated boxcars. That's also why you see pre-Depression era photos of IC reefers in Ft. Dodge, LaSalle, and Dodgeville.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL


Re: MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model

Tim O'Connor
 

Dave

Yes, I thought so too. Downtown Chicago had an underground rail system
for moving freight around.


Ammo?  I thought that was shown to be cars reserved for LCL service.
 
Dave Nelson
 

From: STMFC@... [ mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Saturday, September 02, 2017 3:10 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model
 


This does remind me of the Delano photo of one of the Chicago yards with a long string of at least eight wooden box cars with big white X's painted on the doors - which indicated ammo (making it clear not to hump, and to park them away from people and critical facilities) - that string was 100% CNW.

Dave Evans


Re: MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model

devansprr
 

Jack,

Appreciate the clarification. I had not heard the X for explosives being debunked before. Good to know.

Dave Evans


Re: URTX & MILW, M&StL, SOO, CGW leased reefers

Tim O'Connor
 


To say NOTHING about the enormous amounts of meat products and
beverages and dairy products in the midwest !! While SWIFT and other
meat companies had their own reefer fleets, many of these roads had
reefers equipped for meat (RSM/RPM) as well as packaged meats (RS/RP).

Huge amounts of cherries, blueberries and cranberries are grown in
the upper midwest. Door County in Wisconsin in famous for cherries.

Tim O'Connor


OH BOY!!  I get to say it (again): All those tens of thousands of IC reefers were hauling bananas to Chicago.  Growing up on the north side there were bananas in the house all year long.

Dave Nelson


 ORIGINATING LOADS, 1925

 ROAD    CITRUS    FRESH FRUIT    POTATOES    FRESH VEG
 C&NW    29        1948           8744        4327
 CMO     4         418            2513        475
 CGW     12        168            139         288
 MILW    66        1422           2794        3834
 GB&W    0         41             2310        512
 CB&Q    68        2813           4391        1194
 C&A     7         1710           35          88
 RI      51        1974           1878        1406
 C&EI    0         1184           176         365
 CI&L    0         225            12          280
 CCC&StL 58        716            125         901
 IC      160       31911          1277        7255
 SOO     26        923            9032        740

More than likely, anyone who thinks that Grangers didn't produce reefer loads is modeling the wrong year.

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL                                   


Re: MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model

devansprr
 

Dave,

My bad - you are correct, and the close proximity of the Yermo distribution center (less than 10 miles east of Barstow), could be a perfect example of your post. My personal interest is WWII consists, of which data is very limited. The PRR had a similar installation just south of Harrisburg, and a smaller one just east of Altoona. I have wondered, in the midst of such a car shortage, how the RR's would fill the demand for cars as convoys were assembled.

The whole point of those distribution centers was to avoid RR congestion at the ports. I don't think a RR would hold foreign MT's for such service, but at the same time with a shortage of freight cars, I find it hard to believe they would hold their own cars out of revenue service waiting for the call.

The ATSF string at Barstow might be an example of such captive service for the transfer of cargo from the distribution centers to the ports, which fits in with what you describe - the distinguishing feature may be that we are seeing is a complete train of home road box cars, if these are loads (no way to know).

Dave Evans


Re: Intro Dates for C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Tim O'Connor
 


That is correct. There were 28 permutations in all, including a dozen 12-panel
box cars, most of which never existed. But I agree, when built and with better
details, they look a heck of a lot better than "Blue Box" kits. And I also cut
6" from the height of one car as you did, which was easier than I thought it
would be. Good cheap fodder, those kits. :-)

Tim O'




It seems like I remember that they may have been so willing (or zealous) to combine the various components that they actually molded a car that prototypically was never built. I think it may have been John Nehrich who concluded this in one of his RPI publications.

Bill Welch


Re: MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model

devansprr
 

Bruce,

I messed up - I have always agreed N-G does not apply to home road cars. I thought there was some debate about how far individual trains could diverge from it. My bad.

But the ATSF string being so close to the Yermo transportation storage depot does raise an interesting question about how the RR's would satisfy sudden demands for large quantities of MT's to move cargo to the ports as Convoys were loaded. Would a RR stockpile foreign road MT's for such calls, or would they effectively create a captive service fleet of home road cars? Interesting WWII consist question.

There really isn't any way to know if that string is MT or loaded... Based on John Barry's description of the traffic flowing through Barstow, I find it hard to believe they would have dedicated one of their main yard tracks to storing MT's for local distribution.

Dave Evans


---In STMFC@..., <smithbf@...> wrote :

Dave,


The N-G model does not apply to home road cars, or to individual trains.  No-one associated with it has ever claimed it did.


Regards

Bruce 

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL


From: STMFC@... <STMFC@...> on behalf of devans1@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2017 1:04 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] MTY's breaking the N-G distribution model
 


Gentlemen,

I found another photo on Shorpy I was not aware of:

http://www.shorpy.com/node/14279?size=_original

Barstow, CA, 1943, ATSF yard.

Notice the string of ATSF XM's to the left of the hoppers - every box car is ATSF. In addition to that specific string, there is a real shortage of foreign road cars in this picture. Did Barstow have an MT yard?

I think we have all reached general agreement that the N-G distribution model for box cars is well supported by the data, at least for WWII.

I previously postulated that while the N-G model is good for the car distribution averages on trunk lines, I think this photo helps support the concept that it may not be accurate for individual trains with significant MT consists.

Even though this is a yard, I find it hard to believe that a yard crew would split up that string of ATSF box cars just to intersperse other RR box cars in it when it left (and it may have arrived as a consist.) I also suspect that the string must have been MTs - hard to believe a consist of loads would be 100% ATSF box cars. Loads no, MTs yes.

Taking Cover,
Dave Evans 


Re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Tim O'Connor
 


I had several different plug door body kits. He also produced very nice decal sets.
I have a couple of those.

Tim O'Connor


Tim,

When production stopped he had plug door bodies already to go but the "overhanging" roof continued to be an issue.  To me, the biggest problem was the roof sat too high.  I don;t know if complete kits were provided for review or not.  I do know they were not assembled.

Rich Orr


I've wondered about this - the BODY and ENDS on his reefers were just fine.
It was the extremely poorly rendered roof that really spoils the model. If I
had seen only the body and ends I would have given them a thumbs up too. It's
a real shame because Dick cut bodies for several different SFRD reefers!

Tim O'Connor

As for the SFRD reefers test shots were provided to ATSF experts who "okayed" the model and then tossed Dick under the bus when they were released. 

Rich Orr


Re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Tony Thompson
 

Ben Hom wrote:

"Tossed Dick under the bus" seems a bit strong as the models had these deficiencies plus the poor detail parts, both of which were covered at the time in magazine reviews by Tony Thompson and Andy Sperandeo.  Andy's review was comprehensive and provided instruction on how to correct the worst problems.  We complain on this list about softball reviews in the magazines, so if honestly describing how to fix shortcomings is tossing a manufacturer under the bus, it might be time to question why you're on this list.

More on improving these models at Tony's blog here:

       Andy and I wrote our reviews of the Santa Fe reefer independently and both of us took the same approach: the kit can be fixed and can end up as a decent model. But the design deficiencies were daunting. There was real surgery getting the coupler height right and fixing the bolsters so the trucks were in the right relation to the body. There were some other problems, such s the ice hatches sitting well down inside the hatch platforms. All fixable, as both Andy and I said, but if Dick ended up under the bus, he crawled most of the way himself.
       Dick was a skilled modeler, but his die sinker was not really up to the whole job, and kit design got lost along the way somewhere. Being a good modeler does NOT make you a designer, as Dennis and some others on the list can testify.

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






Re: URTX and MILW, M&StL, SOO, C GW leased reefers: A Pool Arrangement?

William Hirt
 

Doug,

This matches my experience. Though after the time of this list, I worked at the Del Monte cannery in De Kalb IL one summer in the 1970s. We canned peas and lima beans first starting mid-late June and then transitioned to corn and cream corn. If I recall correctly, there were eight full time non-management employees at the cannery as they shipped year 'round via the C&NW and truck. They used a mix of students and migrant workers to staff the cannery during packing time. Canning went on 16-18 hours a day, sometimes longer depending on the day's harvest. The filled cans were stored unlabeled after going through the retort and then labeled when an order came in. The bigger Del Monte cannery was 15 miles west in Rochelle.

Bill Hirt


On 9/2/2017 7:46 PM, 'Doug Harding' doug.harding@... [STMFC] wrote:

The MSTL served a number of canneries, ie Marshall Canning of Western Grocer. Most were sweet corn canners, but pumpkin, peas, green beans, and like were also canned. A short season for processing, ie late July through Sept, but a skeleton staff kept on hand year round to label and ship cans as orders came in. Yes canned corn was kept on site in a warehouse ready to ship as needed. The cans of corn were stored unlabeled, when an order arrived usually the labels also arrived from the buyer. Cans were then unboxed, labeled, reboxed in new boxes and shipped. Reefers would have been used during winter months. The MSTL purchased 50� insulated boxcars in the late 50�s for this traffic. But prior to that purchase, reefers could/would be used.

�

Doug� Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

�



Re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Bill Welch
 

I purchased three of the reefer kits soon after their release. Soon after Keith Jordan published an article in RMJ detailing the several things he did to fix the model, including adding putty to the ends and re-sculpting them. In the article he said that a set of resin castings would be forthcoming to fix the kit's problems. I wrote to Keith a couple of times including SASE but never heard anything further about the parts. This was early in my freight car modeling and I decided to wait to try improving on my own but then InterMountain and Long's Drug offered their kits and I gave the C&BT kits to a friend. Sunshine through Charley s\Slater filled in the gaps.

Bill Welch


Re: URTX and MILW, M&StL, SOO, C G W leased reefers: A Pool Arrangement?

Dennis Storzek
 

Slow at answering because we're watching my two year old grandson this weekend... and it's going to be a looooong weekend. :-)

This discussion has wandered away from Bill's original question; did URTX run the MILW, SOO, CGW and MSt.&L cars as a pool. In my reply I removed the MILW from consideration because it was a transcon, compared to the rest that were essentially regionals.

Ray's table reproduced here:
ORIGINATING LOADS, 1925
ROAD    CITRUS    FRESH FRUIT    POTATOES    FRESH VEG
C&NW        29                 1948                 8744                  4327
CMO             4                  418                   2513                   475
CGW           12                 168                    139                     288
MILW            66               1422                   2794                  3834
GB&W          0                    41                    2310                   512
CB&Q          68                2813                  4391                  1194
C&A              7                 1710                    35                       88
RI                  51                1974                   1878                 1406
C&EI             0                  1184                    176                   365
CI&L              0                  225                      12                     280
CCC&StL    58                  716                    125                    901
IC                160               31911                  1277                 7255
SOO             26                 923                     9032                  740 

Ray's numbers kind of prove my point. The Louie isn't even listed. The CGW originated about 600 reefer loads in the 1925 sample. That's less than two a day. If the roads could get ten "turns" out of each car in a year, they could cover their needs by leasing 50-60 cars.

As I predicted, the bulk of the Soo's reefer loadings were potatoes, a crop that is stored where it is grown and ships throughout the year. The Soo's combined citrus, fresh fruit, and fresh vegetables loadings was less than 1/3 of the Milwaukee's.

The big issue for a smaller road is getting the cars they need; you don't get the traffic if you can't supply the cars. Why would either of these roads, both of which directly competed with the Milwaukee in some portions of their territory, want to be beholden to the Milwaukee for car supply?

A story that dates to slightly after the period of this list, but well illustrates my point:

In the mid sixties much of the beer off the Millwaukee's famed "beer line" shipped on the Soo. How can this be, the Soo doesn't even go to Milwaukee? Well, it does, via trackage rights on...wait for it... the Milwaukee. The Beer Line was open to reciprocal switching. As the MILW slid towards bankruptcy, they couldn't supply cars. But the Soo could. They were actively buying RBL's specifically for the service. They even rented a track in the MILW yard so they could store empties near the loading point. The end result is the MILW spotted Soo cars for loading and pulled the loads for a set switching charge, while the Soo Line got the road haul revenue divisions. Like I said, you can't get the business if you can't supply cars.

Dennis Storzek



Re: C&BT reefers (was: C&BT, IMWX, and InterMountain 1937 Modified Kits

Benjamin Hom
 

Rich Orr wrote:
"As for the SFRD reefers test shots were provided to ATSF experts who "okayed" the model and then tossed Dick under the bus when they were released."

Tim O'Connor replied: 
"I've wondered about this - the BODY and ENDS on his reefers were just fine.  It was the extremely poorly rendered roof that really spoils the model. If I had seen only the body and ends I would have given them a thumbs up too. It's a real shame because Dick cut bodies for several different SFRD reefers!"

Rich Or replied:
"When production stopped he had plug door bodies already to go but the "overhanging" roof continued to be an issue.  To me, the biggest problem was the roof sat too high.  I don't know if complete kits were provided for review or not.  I do know they were not assembled."

The roof issue was exacerbated by the poor underframe design that made the finished models ride too high, and the aforementioned poor detail parts and trucks.

"Tossed Dick under the bus" seems a bit strong as the models had these deficiencies plus the poor detail parts, both of which were covered at the time in magazine reviews by Tony Thompson and Andy Sperandeo.  Andy's review was comprehensive and provided instruction on how to correct the worst problems.  We complain on this list about softball reviews in the magazines, so if honestly describing how to fix shortcomings is tossing a manufacturer under the bus, it might be time to question why you're on this list.

More on improving these models at Tony's blog here:


Ben Hom


35521 - 35540 of 187907