Date   

Re: The G-N Distribution Model

Tim O'Connor
 


  And Second, over time, you'll notice that the percentages of
  cars follow the G-N model. QED.

I don't think that is necessarily true.
Schuyler


Well, as you said, you didn't take any probability, or statistics.
And that is why you think that. It's like any science - true whether
you "believe it" or not.

Tim O'Connor


Re: The G-N Distribution Model

Dave Nelson
 

One of the problems people seem to have in accepting the theory is in the
failure to understand that average does not mean instance. I recommend a
search in the archives for the word yogurt (possibly Yoplait yoghurt),
There should be two hits, one from me and a reply from Tony. Please find
and read.

Basically a single train will never conform to the average. It takes 20-30
real freight trains to conform to the average. How many times do you move
1200-2000 cars across your model railroad? So let's get rea herel: FIRST,
not everybody on the list is a model railroader moving 12-18 car trains.
Some of us are historians. Me for instance. The theory is about real
railroads, not model railroads. SECOND, A few of us use simulators where
60-80 car consists moving across a 100 mile district are the norm. Me for
instance. Which is to say I can apply the theory quite directly because my
choice of expressing historical railroading has no compression in its
representation whereas physical model railroaders are faced with huge
compression requirements and so cannot do a dozen whole 60-80 car consists.

What physical model railroaders can do is make reference to the theory when
making purchases so they're not too overloaded with the arcane AND give some
consideration in the planning stages of how one might cycle cars on and off
their layout so as to achieve greater variability in the arcane because they
do show up.

Dave Nelson


Re: The G-N Distribution Model

Aley, Jeff A
 

Schuyler,

 

               A couple of points – the G-N model only applies to free-roaming cars (think “plain boxcars”).  Not bottle cars, not hoppers, not reefers.  Not even boxcars in Pool service (auto parts?).  For those, you may develop the “Larrabee Distribution Model”.

 

               The G-N model only applies to Foreign-Road cars.  The home road is a whole ‘nuther thing.

 

               What I conclude from the model (given that I model the UP mainline in Kansas), is that I actually do need X29’s and NYC and C&O boxcars, even though Kansas is a long ways from those RR’s territories.  And the proportions of those cars on my model RR should reflect their proportions in the national fleet.  I shouldn’t have 1 X29 with 37 MKT boxcars – the regional bias just ain’t so.  Maybe a particular train would have that variation, but my overall stash of cars should not.

 

Regards,

 

-Jeff

 

 

 

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 6:48 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model

 

 

Well, thank you Bruce. Yes, you did this in one
sentence. And then instantly provided multiple
"excepts."

And while I think this is a logical extension of
the fact that freight cars are free-rolling, can
be assigned anywhere, look at the trek of the
Monon 1 as an example, on any given day, in any
given train, you can see any given railroad's
freight cars . . . I don't quite believe it.
Sorry. Sorry I asked.

This would suggest that in a train on, for
example, the NP you could, on average, over time,
see the sane, or very nearly the same, consist
makeup as say, on the Southern. Or the UP, Or
the D&H. Or the Rutland, the MEC, the NH, the
M&StL, the CGW, the AA, the NKP, the C&O, the SP .
. .

No wonder Brock obsesses about some damned hopper
going over some hill out west. 8^)

Maybe. But I have a bit of a hard time believing
that the consists of freight trains could be that
homogeneous across the country as that. And that
it would be a good way to establish the mix of
cars you have on your model of the XYZ railroad,
because that's what the G-N Distribution Model
says.

I can easily see how quickly that would get skewed
for any one railroad overall, never mind in
specific areas of a particular road. And I
suppose that's just one of the "excepts."

The ERIE had traffic between steel mills and
rolling mills around Youngstown. So if I were to
be modeling the Youngstown area (it would take a
gymnasium to model that!) I'd need hot metal
bottle cars, as well as more gons than I want to
think about. Plus a lot of hoppers, most likely
from eastern roads. Yeah, well, that's an
"except."

The ERIE had a tremendous produce and fruit market
to serve in NYC, so there were reefer blocks,
solid reefer trains, from Chicago to NYC (with a
few diverted to other eastern cities). I'll need
a lot of reefers. Yeah, well, that's a "except."

Maybe other than those "excepts," the composition
of the general freight pool for the rest of the
trains running over the entire line of the ERIE
might conform to the G-N Distribution Model, but I
am not even so sure of that. It seems to me that
there must have been some level of regional
skewing.

I must say that the responses I've seen from
long-time list members that amount to "weren't you
paying attention?" and offers to send me 1500 of
these emails and also 100 or so from someone else
so I can figure it out for myself certainly don't
reflect the usual level of "here, let me help you
with that" that it typical of this list. I think
the Claus is in much the same boat as I am, which
in effect is "what are you guys talking about?
Please educate me, and put this in an easily
understood form that I can go back to and think
about for my own purposes."

In my first post with this subject line, I asked:
"But is the G-N Model neatly summarized anywhere?"
I'm sorry Bruce, but your one sentence summary
doesn't quite get me there.

Schuyler

From: STMFC@...
[mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 6:50 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model

Schuyler,

Yes. Repeatedly. In the archives. But to make it
simple, here it is, again:

Boxcars from any given railroad appear on any
other railroad at the same frequency as they occur
in the national pool.

That's it. Really pretty simple. Note that it does
not govern the frequency of home road cars, or the
frequency of cars in individual trains, but the
overall frequency of foreign road box cars.
Several caveats deal with cars in assigned or pool
service, branch lines in the middle of nowhere,
yada, yada, yada... but the essence is very pure
and simple.

Regards

Bruce

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL

_____

From: STMFC@...
<STMFC@...> on behalf of 'Schuyler
Larrabee' schuyler.larrabee@... [STMFC]
<STMFC@...>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 5:21 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model

Gize,

I wasn't very interested in the Gilbert-Nelson
Distribution Model when it was being developed. I
didn't have a layout then (still don't, but maybe
. . .) so I satisfied my Freight Car building
urges by building kits that struck my eyes as
being interesting. Since those times I've settled
(more or less) on modeling the ERIE in the 1950-52
time frame, and thus the G-N Model has become of
more interest to me.

But is the G-N Model neatly summarized anywhere?

And where might I find that?

Schuyler

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


Re: nitpicking PRR x26 boxcar Youngstown doors in HO Scale

Benjamin Hom
 

Steve Hoxie wrote:
"I hate to be contrarian, and Ben has corrected me before, but the X26 photos I have available show most commonly the 5/4/5 door as on the USRA car in Bryian's photo.

38333, 45466, 46096, 46511, 540176, 564311, 565081 all have 5/4/5 doors without evidence of welded halves.

I also have 45927 with a 7 panel Superior door, and 45939 with a 3 panel door like the X29 with well defined welded halves.

I don't have any X26 photos with any other type of Youngstown door, although I do not doubt anyone's reporting of such doors."

I don't doubt that Class X26 cars received new Youngstown or Superior doors as the number of X26 exceeded the total number of source doors from the Class X28A conversion program.  Let's go inside the numbers:

- 5000 Class X28 were built; of these, 1000 had Youngstown doors, the rest 3-panel steel doors.
- So assuming all cars were rebuilt (they weren't due to wreck losses, but all survivors were rebuilt), enough replacement auxiliary doors would be salvaged to equip a total of 2500 Class X26 boxcars, including enough Youngstown doors for 500 cars.
- PRR acquired a total of 9900 Class X26 boxcars.  Even accounting for the fact that not all cars were upgraded, the demand for additional doors for the upgraded cars would outstrip the supply of salvaged doors from the Class X28 automobile cars, so some cars would have received new doors from other sources.


Ben Hom


nitpicking PRR x26 boxcar Youngstown doors in HO Scale

Andy Carlson
 

I simply searched for "PRR X26 Box Car" and the first good prototype view was of PRR #564287, a B&W vintage view (The sheathing was in good condition).

That car had the pre-war Youngstown 5/5/5-s door with Ben Hom's vertical down the middle seam very much in evidence. I can forward the picture to anyone who wants it. To me, it looks just like the Bowser single 6' door from the X31.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA



From: "stevehprr@... [STMFC]"
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 9:38 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] nitpicking PRR x26 boxcar Youngstown doors in HO Scale

 
I hate to be contrarian, and Ben has corrected me before, but the X26 photos I have available show most commonly the 5/4/5 door as on the USRA car in Bryian's photo.

38333, 45466, 46096, 46511, 540176, 564311, 565081 all have 5/4/5 doors without evidence of welded halves.

I also have 45927 with a 7 panel Superior door, and 45939 with a 3 panel door like the X29 with well defined welded halves.

I don't have any X26 photos with any other type of Youngstown door, although I do not doubt anyone's reporting of such doors.

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL



Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

gary laakso
 

The July, 2010 issue of RMC has an article by Kris Kollar on modeling the F 33 using the F&C kit and it includes modifying the trucks.

Gary Laakso

Northwest of Mike Brock

 

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 9:04 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

 

 

Based on Rich's tabulation it seems like the F33 would be a better choice. I just did search for Railworks and did not find anything relevant. Are the brass trucks from Railwoarks?

 

Bill Welch


Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: Shorpy image origin & Pittsburgh scenes

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Eric, Schuyler and all;

I also love these images, one reason being the variety of freight cars and other great city features visible. One can see Pennsylvania Lines, Erie, NYC, DL&W, of course many P&LE, WM, NO&NE, NP, an ACL ventilated car, MC, Canadian Northern, "Hocking valley", PMcK&Y, Merchants Despatch, and others these tired old eyes can't read, but also the old B&O station downtown, the sternwheeler warehouses, the Lorena, the Pacific No.2, and all the old wooden coal barges, and all the great downtown buildings. There are the old P&LE truss rod passenger cars alongside the shed, and even milk cans on the platform at right. I LOVE these old pics!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 11:52 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: [STMFC] Shorpy image origin & Pittsburgh scenes



Schuyler picked one of my favorite Pittsburgh images to share. I was traveling and unable to respond with a comprehensive reply.



This Shorpy image is from the Detroit Publishing Collection in the Library of Congress. Here's a link to the image on the LoC site where you can download a high quality 156 MB TIF file to review.

Blockedhttps://www.loc.gov/item/det1994020047/PP/





In a later post Rich Orr mentioned, "The photo is the P&LE freight house along Carson St and currently immediately northwest of Station Square the site of the former P&LE passenger station and corporate HQ."



That is kind of correct. The freight cars in the foreground of that image are lined up for the freight house, but the shed is the passenger terminal. Here's another image taken from a slightly different angle showing the relationship of the freight house and where it stood in comparison to the P&LE passenger terminal in the Teens. Again, you can use a dropdown menu here to download a high quality TIF file to review.

Blockedhttps://www.loc.gov/item/det1994007073/PP/





My overall favorite images are a group of four photos taken from Mount Washington that offer a glimpse of a nearly forgotten Pittsburgh. There have been many changes in the last 110 years.

Blockedhttps://www.loc.gov/item/det1994007074/PP/





These four images start at the Point where the Monongahela & Allegheny Rivers meet to form the Ohio River. In the foreground are the Kelly Wrought Iron operation and the Wabash bridge. The Wabash financed the original P&WV construction into Pittsburgh. The bridge accesses a stub passenger terminal and small freight terminal that were above street level. Beyond the Wabash bridge, we get a view of the PRR freight facilities located at the Point. A couple of large freight houses and team yard served the many retailers and wholesalers in downtown Pittsburgh. The Wabash also had a freight house associated with their downtown terminal. In the distant haze, just across the Allegheny River from the Point, the B&O and BR&P had a yard along the banks of the Allegheny. Two freight houses and two team yards were in close proximity, along with large warehouses for a few of the large local department stores (Kaufmann's, Rosenbaum's, and May-Stearn). Football and baseball stadiums occupy the area today, along with parking lots and newer buildings.



The second and third images of the set feature some freight cars on the foreground P&LE tracks. The last image looks southward down the Monongahela River valley. We see the P&LE team yard that was just across Smithfield Street from the P&LE terminal area. The bridge just beyond the team yard is the Panhandle Bridge of the PRR that connected tracks along the base of Mount Washington with the PRR passenger terminal. Just to the left of that bridge on the far bank of the Monongahela River is the B&O terminal. The passenger portion is closer to the distinctive lenticular truss Smithfield Street bridge. Note the structure with the very long roof closer to the PRR bridge. That is a B&O freight house. It has a few interior tracks for car loading and unloading. The white building just beyond the PRR bridge is a B&O warehouse and a team yard sits just beyond the warehouse.



Not quite seen in these photos are a couple of PRR freight facilities. The Try Street team yard was located just off of the approach to the Panhandle Bridge and sat near the base of the bluff behind the B&O freight house. The PRR line went into a short tunnel to access the passenger terminal at Grant & Liberty Streets, but there was a very large freight house along Grant Street just before the passenger terminal that was served by the line connecting with the Panhandle Bridge.



If anyone is scratching their head wondering why there were so many Pittsburgh freight facilities within a mile of each other, just remember that they were the UPS/FedEX delivery hubs of the day. This is where the goods arrived for local retailers and wholesalers. A variety of freight cars moved in and out of these places a couple times a day. And there were more PRR facilities on the other side of the Allegheny River, plus the produce yard in the Strip District.



Shorpy images just scratch the surface. Some exploration on the Library of Congress site can offer more detail. Diving into the Historic Pittsburgh digital archive will reveal more local images.

Blockedhttp://www.historicpittsburgh.org/



And the Pittsburgh Historic Maps site is an amazing interactive encounter.

Blockedhttp://peoplemaps.esri.com/pittsburgh/





I guess I should apologize for ruining the rest of Doc Denny's week.





Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

























________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 3:58 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Shorpy image with railroads in the front.








Blockedhttp://www.shorpy.com/node/22446?size=_original#caption





Schuyler


Re: The G-N Distribution Model

Dave Nelson
 

Tim's dead, I'm alive. Bruce Smith's summary does as good a job at stating
the bottom line as any. If you need extra wrinkles then add WWII (maybe as
early as 1940) into the 50's, mainline trunk routes -- you need to see a lot
of boxcars rolling by to get a proper sample. The dates cited are what they
are only because I had hard data for that period, not because before or
after have been shown to not be relevant.

Dave Nelson

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 4:41 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model

Hi List Members,

Like Schuyler, I too would be interested in reading a rigorous summary of
the N-G distribution model. But it sounds like answering Schuyler's question
is not as simple as it might appear to be at first glance.

Perhaps a scholarly work of this level of importance to us should have an
official repository of its findings somewhere. I would suggest something
like a web page could be appropriate, perhaps.

Furthermore, it would seem to me that providing the contents of this
repository perhaps should not be the job of anyone other than the
Gilbert-Nelson team members themselves. That way they get to speak for the
work they have done. If it is not them, then it is a bunch of other folks
interpreting the work of the N-G team. This will inevitably lead to the
introduction of errors, inaccuracies, and departures from the intent of the
N-G team.

Suggesting that someone seeking a summary might want to inspect "over 1,500
saved emails" or "just the 578 emails from Tim Gilbert, and about a hundred
from Dave Nelson" is effectively saying that no such summary exists in a
easily digested or accessible form. Is that in fact the case - has the N-G
team not published a rigorous summary of their findings in any one place?

Just my humble thoughts on the topic...

Claus Schlund




----- Original Message -----
From: "'Bruce F. Smith' smithbf@auburn.edu [STMFC]" <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2017 4:08 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model


Tim,


And with all that, you got it wrong? :) The N-G model does NOT apply to
mill gondolas. They are regional in distribution. Flat
cars do conform to the N-G model, at least for some periods.


Regards,

Bruce

Bruce Smith

Auburn, AL

________________________________
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <STMFC@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Tim
O'Connor timboconnor@comcast.net [STMFC]
<STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, September 4, 2017 5:57 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] The G-N Distribution Model



Schuyler

A summary??? LOL !!

I have over 1,500 saved emails I could send to you ... :-)

Or just the 578 emails from Tim Gilbert, and about a hundred from Dave
Nelson?

My summary for your time frame: box car and flat car and mill gondolas
distribution
is proportional to the fleet size of every railroad, i.e. the model is that
those cars
roamed freely and randomly. Then you add the spice of traffic for your
railroad: reefers,
stock cars, coal cars, coal and stone gondolas, tank cars. Home road cars of
the latter
variety (livestock, coal, stone) tended to stay near home.

The email archive includes hundreds of special cases, exceptions, and
variations in
time and space - and scores of known consists from the 40's and 50's.

Tim




Gize,

I wasn?t very interested in the Gilbert-Nelson Distribution Model when it
was being developed. I didn?t have a layout then (still
don?t, but maybe . . .) so I satisfied my Freight Car building urges by
building kits that struck my eyes as being interesting.
Since those times I?ve settled (more or less) on modeling the ERIE in the
1950-52 time frame, and thus the G-N Model has become of
more interest to me.

But is the G-N Model neatly summarized anywhere?

And where might I find that?

Schuyler






------------------------------------
Posted by: "Claus Schlund" <claus@hellgatemodels.com>
------------------------------------


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

Yahoo Groups Links


Re: nitpicking PRR x26 boxcar Youngstown doors in HO Scale

pennsylvania1954
 

I hate to be contrarian, and Ben has corrected me before, but the X26 photos I have available show most commonly the 5/4/5 door as on the USRA car in Bryian's photo.

38333, 45466, 46096, 46511, 540176, 564311, 565081 all have 5/4/5 doors without evidence of welded halves.

I also have 45927 with a 7 panel Superior door, and 45939 with a 3 panel door like the X29 with well defined welded halves.

I don't have any X26 photos with any other type of Youngstown door, although I do not doubt anyone's reporting of such doors.

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Re: The G-N Distribution Model

devansprr
 

Schuyler, Claus,

First - I'll take the heat for my erroneous post a few days ago about the Delano 1943 Barstow picture that appears to have started this thread (to the apparent irritation of the more senior members of this group). I got a little over-excited about the solid string of ATSF box cars that could be loads, likely a train out of the War Department's Yermo storage facility, on its way to a WWII port of Embarkation on the west coast.

No way to know for sure if that is the case, unless someone WILL WEIGH IN on what sort of paperwork would be stapled to the tack boards of XM's by the ASTF....

That string of cars, if it was a loaded consist, would be an example of a consist that appears to defy the N-G model, but in fact does not. As Bruce, Tim and Tony have pointed out, the N-G model is appropriate for the overall distribution of Box cars for at least the WWII period (my personal interest) and beyond. Averaging consists over a period of time (undefined), I believe it is accurate for trunk line traffic. For model railroads that are close to, or focus around, specific industries (either individual, or within a region), the diversion from N-G can be significant. There has also been considerable discussion about how the Canadian RR's fit into that model since there were requirements, varying over time, to hustle Canadian cars back towards Canada once unloaded.

I'll take crack at a summary, at least as it pertains to box cars - where there has been general agreement on this list. For flats and gons, there is obviously differences of opinion (and I believe the N-G model never claimed to cover other types of cars - Dave Nelson?) The group consensus is that it is not appropriate for hoppers and tank cars, and may have been appropriate for reefers over only a few years of WWII (Tony? Bruce?).

As you have surmised, many of us are using the N-G model to help create a realistic freight car fleet for our model railroads. That is where the statistical aspect comes into play. Tim is correct that statistical variations will yield significant diversions from N-G theory for individual trains, and even specific days for a major trunk line. For modelers, this translates into trains and op sessions.

The question is do you want the prototype police to cry foul when they operate your layout because they never saw a NP XM, or a PRR X29? (depending on your era - the PRR deployed more X29 class boxcars than the NP owned in 1943... Sorry Mike ;-)

Tim's remark that you will need 10 to 20 times the number of cars for your layout to accurately represent N-G is incorrect. (Although he may be correct if you want to match the distribution for every box car class within a RR's box car fleet, rather than be representative only by RR.) If you were only concerned about an approximate representation of each RR, then you do not even need double the fleet - although it really depends on how many op sessions you are willing to host before someone complains that they never saw a Tennessee Central XM (200 cars in 1943 ORER, out of around 800k XM's in the North American fleet. One car in 4,000!) I actually dug into the statistics a few years back and if you search for messages by member devansprr on 2/4/2009 (wow - long time ago), I reported the results of a statistical analysis I did on this issue. The February 2009 thread on freight car distribution was pretty extensive.

In summary, based on the 1943 ORER (your era will vary - YEWV?), if you were to bring 200 box cars out of staging each op session, and your operators could only recall the box cars that appeared over five op sessions, then to match the statistics of the N-G theory, you would have 178 box cars from 39 roads that would appear every op session. An additional 17 cars per op session would be drawn from a pool of 33 cars (one for each of 33 roads), appearing once to four times out of five op sessions, depending on that road's fleet size (at this point we have accounted for the 72 roads with the largest box car fleets.). The last five cars to appear in each session would be from a pool of 147 roads that had the smallest fleets. Since you are clearing everyone's memories after five op sessions, you would only need 25 of these cars, each appearing only once per every five op sessions, allowing you to avoid building box cars from 122 of the 147 roads with the smallest box car fleets.

In the end, 236 box cars would provide you with a fleet that matched the N-G distribution over five op sessions. To match over more op sessions, a few more cars would need to be added. But you would really only need 36 extra box cars (above the 200 required) to match the N-G model. BTW, of the 178 box cars from the 39 largest fleets, 100 of those cars would be from the 11 roads with the largest fleets. Note that extra cars from the 39 largest fleets would be usable over the five op sessions to provide greater, and perfectly legitimate, statistical variation on a per op session basis (e.g. run 3 extra ATSF box cars in one session, and pull out 3 of the regular ATSF box cars in another session.) And having more than 236 cars for the 200 car session is perfectly acceptable - just don't put out three TC box cars every session - you still want to be representative of the national fleet percentages.

If those 200 cars appear in 20 trains, then only five of the trains will have the rare cars, and a few trains may be heavily biased towards one or a few roads. That matches the data that forms the basis of the N-G theory.

I would note that N-G applies to loads. I diverge a little from the group when it comes to MTs. My personal interest is the PRR mainline west of Harrisburg during WWII, and since the WB traffic was mostly MTs, there will be exceptions to N-G, even over large sample sets. This is because of the routing of foreign cars to home roads. Specific to my era and location of interest, NYCentral cars will be significantly under-represented for the WB traffic - the PRR had specific instructions on where to route MT NYC cars in Harrisburg, and it was NOT towards Altoona. So there may be some adjustments required for MT's depending on the location you model, and where MTs could be returned to foreign roads your road interchanged with. (Conversely, if you are modeling an interchange with a large road, you may need more of that road's cars delivered to the interchange, representing MT's being sent home from across the system you model.)

If you only require a smaller fleet, then the number of cars required still drops. Sticking with the concept that none of your operators will recall what cars they saw after five op sessions, if you only need 50 box cars to come out of staging every op session, you only need about 81 cars - 34 cars from 17 roads that participate in every session, 27 cars from 27 roads that will appear from once to four times out of every five op sessions, and a pool of 20 cars that will contribute 4 cars to each op session, none appearing in more than one of the five op sessions. More cars for the large roads will help create a little more variability (it would be justified) as long as you fiddle them in and out between sessions. Because the 1943 box car fleet was so diverse, the once per five sessions "fiddle pool" would include such well known roads such as CGW, Cotton Belt, D&H, MEC, B&M, WM, KCS, CofG, and several others. You could have more than 20 cars in that pool - but then some of the cars would not even appear every fifth session (which is ok.) And your five session consist averages will match the what one could expect from a random sample of 250 box cars from several days of trains on a trunk line.

There are other ways to slice the N-G data/theory. For a WWII modeler trying to capture the flavor of the WWII fleet, matching the distribution of steel versus wood, overall volume, and length is another consideration. During WWII, 36 foot boxcars outnumbered 50 foot box cars. Ignoring the Canadian 36 foot fleet (due to the exception above), 36 footers were 50% more numerous than 50 footers during WWII - which is why the 36 foot Accurail model is so significant for the WWII modeler. And wood sided cars outnumbered steel sided cars (55% vs. 45%.) Significantly, three of the six largest North American fleets (PRR, NYC, B&O) were about 90% steel - so it turns out that in 1943 66% of the non-PRR, non-NYC, and non-B&O North American box car fleet was wood.)

Modeling WWII is almost like a different scale compared to the modern era - the cube of today's 53 trailer van is about the same as an X29 - and I am driving next to it on the interstate at 70 mph... and now the RR's double stack them. Using N-G helps ensure the sensation of smaller box cars is preserved for a WWII layout.

Therefore certain classes of cars should also probably be considered - the PRR X29/ARA 1923 steel box car and the 1937 ARA designs being two numerous classes during WWII (PRR X29's made up nearly 3% of the national fleet, and there was an equal number of brethren from the other roads, and by 1944 the 1937 ARA fleet, across all roads, totaled nearly 12% of the national fleet.) With so many fine models of the 1937 fleet, it is easy to acquire a representative sample - and also easy to over-represent that fleet - and they were considerably larger (by cube) than over half of the national 40 foot fleet.  Obviously these numbers would change as the national box car fleet changed. Personally I believe that following N-G helps ensure a model RR gives one the correct impression of the RR fleet for the era modeled.

From a railfanning standpoint, the N-G model should also simulate the "diamond in the rough" experience of a WWII prototype railfan on Sherman Hill who, on average, might spot only one box car each from the GB&W, Georgia, TH&B, NWP, and FEC out of every 1000 box cars that passed by. (Each of those roads are in the bottom 147 fleets) To match the N-G theory, even roads like MKT, T&P, CGW, WP would not be represented in every 200 boxcar op session (and I recognize that is a pretty big op session.) Conversely, out of those 1000 box cars appearing in 5 op sessions, in 1943, on average, on a road other than PRR, 90 of those box cars would be PRR - 30 of them class X29 (PRR made up about 9% of the US box car fleet in 1943, so a 236 boxcar fleet should have around 18 or so PRR cars, 6 of them X29s.)

Note that with 200 box cars appearing every op session, you should include 2 NP box cars every session to keep the sheriff happy... (which is why we are all eagerly awaiting Rapido's next freight car - it could be the jail buster.)

With such a fleet, as long as your trains out of staging are not all run-throughs, the psuedo-random distribution of cars should yield what seem like unlikely scenes - yet they will be quite legitimate. There is a classic Delano 1943 picture from Belan, NM with four identifiable box cars in it. All belong to east coast roads, several are unique classes, and one is from a road, that if I recall correctly, owned less than 200 XM's. So in the micro, N-G will never be apparent - in the macro, it should, and if you use it to guide your fleet acquistions, your micro scenes will be entirety defensible to the prototype police.

Dave Evans

PS - I would note that I have not factored in the general agreement that home road cars would be over-represented compared to what N-G would predict. Your home road fleet might impact these numbers a fair amount, or hardly at all, depending on the size of their fleet.


---In STMFC@..., <schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote :

Tim O'Connor wrote:


Do we HAVE to go through all of this again
Schuyler??

Actually, the point is NOT to go through all this
again. I asked, again, is, the G-N Model neatly
summarized anywhere? I most assuredly do not want
to go through the 1600+ emails you offered.
Bruce's single-sentence summary is helpful but not
entirely convincing. It's TOO simple.

Many people seem to need a refresher class in
probability and statistics
before they can understand WHY not all trains look
alike.

Well, sorry, but my career path didn't require me
to take a class in probability and statistics to
begin with, never mind a refresher. And you know
the quotation that involves statistics. And since
I don't want to assume you know, as you're
assuming I do, the quotation is "Lies, damned
lies, and statistics."

I never said all trains look alike, Of course
not, that's why we loved (in the transition era)
to watch them go by, just about every car was
different, different shape, different roads,
different regions of the country. But the logical
extrapolation of what has been said leads me back
to This would suggest that in a train on, for
example, the NP you could, on average, over time,
see the sane, or very nearly the same, consist
makeup as say, on the Southern. Or the UP, Or
the D&H. Or the Rutland, the MEC, the NH, the
M&StL, the CGW, the AA, the NKP, the C&O, the SP

Notice I didn't say the same train. I said the
same CONSIST MAKEUP, which doesn't even claim that
the assortment of road names represents the same
car types. Hence, a train with all the same
reporting marks could look completely different
than the same set of reporting marks for another
train.

If you remember even a little bit of high school
math, you should remember
that a random distribution of coin tosses (heads
or tails) produces a
BINOMIAL DISTRIBUTION (aka the Bell Curve). The
chance that two random
freight trains of 100 cars each have exactly the
same cars in them is
astronomically small!

Of course it is. Don't be, well, insulting. I
never suggested that. Maybe you are not grasping
what I am saying.

And THAT is why even though ON AVERAGE freight
cars
are distributed according to their share of the
fleet, on any given day or
in any given train, there may be very different
proportions in that train.

I get that. But the G-N Distribution Model has
been getting used as a way to establish the
distribution of cars a modeler should have in ther
complement of cars on their model railroads. It
strikes me that if you were to stand trackside
around the country in the early 50s, for example,
the G-N Model might well be fulfilled, overall, on
average, across the nation. But to extrapolate
(actually, the inverse of extrapolate, a term I
don't know) the Model and use it as a method of
determining the complement of car reporting marks,
car types, and so on for a model railroad
representing a subdivision of a prototype railroad
strikes me a not a solid basis for doing so.


To PROPERLY model based on the G-N model you
really need at least 10x or 20x
the number of cars that can possibly be used on
your layout. That fleet should
be based on the national percentages.

If we were to do that, it's my impression that we
would all have trains made up predominantly of PRR
cars. For most railroads, I think that would be
highly unlikely. Many, sure, but not likely in
proportion to "the national percentages."

Then write yourself a Basic program that
RANDOMLY chooses box cars to enter the layout from
your staging yard. You will
notice two things. First, there is an incredible
variety of consists.

Undoubtedly.

And Second,
over time, you'll notice that the percentages of
cars follow the G-N model. QED.



I don't think that is necessarily true.

Schuyler




Tim O'Connor




This would suggest that in a train on, for
example, the NP you could, on average, over time,
see the sane, or very nearly the same, consist
makeup as say, on the Southern. Or the UP, Or
the D&H. Or the Rutland, the MEC, the NH, the
M&StL, the CGW, the AA, the NKP, the C&O, the SP .





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


dry transfer lettring

frograbbit602
 

Review of the Clover House website shows the old alphabet Railroad Roman Combined condensed bold -white dry transfer lettering set, number 9600-11, which had 1/32", 3/64",1/16" and 3/32" letters and numbers is no longer available.  Excellent to make up car end lettering decals and changing numbers.  Has  anyone found another manufacture for a source for this style lettering?

Lester Breuer



Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Bill Welch
 

Based on Rich's tabulation it seems like the F33 would be a better choice. I just did search for Railworks and did not find anything relevant. Are the brass trucks from Railwoarks?

Bill Welch


Re: [EXTERNAL] F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Bill;

Oh, and sorry, the F28 was not technically a well hole, but just a well flat. The drooped side members and shallow well are confusing, but then again, this was PRR's first entry into a really heavy duty turbine/generator hauler with relatively high clearances, so they didn't do a complete depressed center type of design. They left that step until they decided to do the F29. The F37B were true well hole flats. The late F47 (not of interest to you) were convertible to partial well hole. The F25, which were coolest of all, some of which were converted to diagonal plate loaders, were partial "gridded" well holes, but also not true well hole flats.

Again, if you'd like to discuss further, or see pics, let me know!

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 9:46 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [STMFC] F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question



Curious if anyone here has built or can comment on Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 issued by Funaro & Camerlengo? Was the F28 their most numerous well hole type?




Bill Welch


Re: Shorpy image origin & Pittsburgh scenes

Eric Hansmann
 

Schuyler picked one of my favorite Pittsburgh images to share. I was traveling and unable to respond with a comprehensive reply.

 

This Shorpy image is from the Detroit Publishing Collection in the Library of Congress. Here’s a link to the image on the LoC site where you can download a high quality 156 MB TIF file to review.

https://www.loc.gov/item/det1994020047/PP/

 

 

In a later post Rich Orr mentioned, “The photo is the P&LE freight house along Carson St and currently immediately northwest of Station Square the site of the former P&LE passenger station and corporate HQ.”

 

That is kind of correct. The freight cars in the foreground of that image are lined up for the freight house, but the shed is the passenger terminal. Here’s another image taken from a slightly different angle showing the relationship of the freight house and where it stood in comparison to the P&LE passenger terminal in the Teens. Again, you can use a dropdown menu here to download a high quality TIF file to review.

https://www.loc.gov/item/det1994007073/PP/

 

 

My overall favorite images are a group of four photos taken from Mount Washington that offer a glimpse of a nearly forgotten Pittsburgh. There have been many changes in the last 110 years.

https://www.loc.gov/item/det1994007074/PP/

 

 

These four images start at the Point where the Monongahela & Allegheny Rivers meet to form the Ohio River. In the foreground are the Kelly Wrought Iron operation and the Wabash bridge. The Wabash financed the original P&WV construction into Pittsburgh. The bridge accesses a stub passenger terminal and small freight terminal that were above street level. Beyond the Wabash bridge, we get a view of the PRR freight facilities located at the Point. A couple of large freight houses and team yard served the many retailers and wholesalers in downtown Pittsburgh. The Wabash also had a freight house associated with their downtown terminal. In the distant haze, just across the Allegheny River from the Point, the B&O and BR&P had a yard along the banks of the Allegheny. Two freight houses and two team yards were in close proximity, along with large warehouses for a few of the large local department stores (Kaufmann’s, Rosenbaum’s, and May-Stearn). Football and baseball stadiums occupy the area today, along with parking lots and newer buildings.

 

The second and third images of the set feature some freight cars on the foreground P&LE tracks. The last image looks southward down the Monongahela River valley. We see the P&LE team yard that was just across Smithfield Street from the P&LE terminal area. The bridge just beyond the team yard is the Panhandle Bridge of the PRR that connected tracks along the base of Mount Washington with the PRR passenger terminal. Just to the left of that bridge on the far bank of the Monongahela River is the B&O terminal. The passenger portion is closer to the distinctive lenticular truss Smithfield Street bridge. Note the structure with the very long roof closer to the PRR bridge. That is a B&O freight house. It has a few interior tracks for car loading and unloading. The white building just beyond the PRR bridge is a B&O warehouse and a team yard sits just beyond the warehouse.

 

Not quite seen in these photos are a couple of PRR freight facilities. The Try Street team yard was located just off of the approach to the Panhandle Bridge and sat near the base of the bluff behind the B&O freight house. The PRR line went into a short tunnel to access the passenger terminal at Grant & Liberty Streets, but there was a very large freight house along Grant Street just before the passenger terminal that was served by the line connecting with the Panhandle Bridge.

 

If anyone is scratching their head wondering why there were so many Pittsburgh freight facilities within a mile of each other, just remember that they were the UPS/FedEX delivery hubs of the day. This is where the goods arrived for local retailers and wholesalers. A variety of freight cars moved in and out of these places a couple times a day. And there were more PRR facilities on the other side of the Allegheny River, plus the produce yard in the Strip District.

 

Shorpy images just scratch the surface. Some exploration on the Library of Congress site can offer more detail. Diving into the Historic Pittsburgh digital archive will reveal more local images.

http://www.historicpittsburgh.org/

 

And the Pittsburgh Historic Maps site is an amazing interactive encounter.

http://peoplemaps.esri.com/pittsburgh/

 

 

I guess I should apologize for ruining the rest of Doc Denny’s week.

 

 

Eric Hansmann

Murfreesboro, TN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2017 3:58 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Shorpy image with railroads in the front.

 




http://www.shorpy.com/node/22446?size=_original#caption

 

 

Schuyler

 


 


Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Bill;

Let me know if you need some pics.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2017 11:22 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [STMFC] F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question



Bill, Folks,

The F29 and F33 are also available from F&C, as well as all 3 (F28. F29 and F33) being available from Railworks in brass in HO. In addition, extra trucks are available in brass if you wish to equip your F&C flat with brass trucks instead of the resin trucks in the kit.

Regards

Bruce




Bruce F. Smith

Auburn, AL

Blockedhttps://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."




On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:19 AM, fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com <mailto:fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com> [STMFC] <STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com> > wrote:



Well having failed so far to make any substantive contribution to the GS build I have demonstrated I am not very reliable.

The F28 is attractive to me because it looks rather massive and busy. Bruce your message implies there are models for F29 and F33. Looks like I need to do more research.

Thank you Bruce and Rich.

Bill Welch


Re: nitpicking PRR x26 boxcar Youngstown doors in HO Scale

Bill Welch
 

However I should not try to count early in the day. The Tichy door is 5/6/5, NOT 5/5/5 as I said earlier.

I am going to look at the Bowser door too, I am trying to make better doors for my Atlas 1932 Erie and I-GN models.

Bill Welch


Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Bruce Smith
 

Bill, Folks,

The F29 and F33 are also available from F&C, as well as all 3 (F28. F29 and F33) being available from Railworks in brass in HO.  In addition, extra trucks are available in brass if you wish to equip your F&C flat with brass trucks instead of the resin trucks in the kit.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Sep 5, 2017, at 10:19 AM, fgexbill@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Well having failed so far to make any substantive contribution to the GS build I have demonstrated I am not very reliable.

The F28 is attractive to me because it looks rather massive and busy. Bruce your message implies there are models for F29 and F33. Looks like I need to do more research.

Thank you Bruce and Rich.

Bill Welch




Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Bill Welch
 

Well having failed so far to make any substantive contribution to the GS build I have demonstrated I am not very reliable.

The F28 is attractive to me because it looks rather massive and busy. Bruce your message implies there are models for F29 and F33. Looks like I need to do more research.

Thank you Bruce and Rich.

Bill Welch


Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

Bruce Smith
 

Bill,

Having looked at the kit, this will be one of the easiest resin cars to build because it has something like 10 parts, but I’m SURE you’ll find room to improve the details.

That said, the F28 class consisted of just 2 cars so no, not even close to the most common.  Other cars with larger rosters included the FN (10), FNa (27), F25 (17?), F25a (6), F33 (10), and F37 (20).  

BTW, the PRRPro group is taking on the F28/F29/F33 as our first project for 2018, so that project will start january 1, 2018, if you’d like to join in.

Regards

Bruce


Bruce F. Smith            

Auburn, AL

https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."



On Sep 5, 2017, at 8:46 AM, fgexbill@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:



Curious if anyone here has built or can comment on Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 issued by Funaro & Camerlengo? Was the F28 their most numerous well hole type?



Bill Welch






Re: F&C's Pennsylvania F28 Well Hole Flat Car kit #8450 question

SUVCWORR@...
 

Bill,

There were only 2 PRR F28 flats.  

FNa - 27
F25 - 26
F33 - 16
FN - 10
all the others were less than 10

Rich Orr


33781 - 33800 of 186242