While scanning multiple WWI era files in the SRHA archives, I’ve learned about an aspect of the United States Railroad Administration (USRA) I was not aware of. In addition to the typical railroad officers, the Southern had a “Federal Manager” that acted as an intermediary between the railroad management and the USRA. The correspondence shows decisions about which USRA “allocations” had been requested, to accept them and then how to pay for them were made by some combination of the three.

On 04/12/2021 9:05 PM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

 

 

While scanning multiple WWI era files in the SRHA archives, I’ve learned about an aspect of the United States Railroad Administration (USRA) I was not aware of. In addition to the typical railroad officers, the Southern had a “Federal Manager” that acted as an intermediary between the railroad management and the USRA. The correspondence shows decisions about which USRA “allocations” had been requested, to accept them and then how to pay for them were made by some combination of the three.

 

One answered a long-standing question of mine about why the Southern had so few USRA design box cars. In a full page letter to the USRA, Southern explained that its standard 30-ton, 36ft box cars were more suitable to its freight traffic than the 40ft, 40-T USRA standard cars (designed by the NYC?) that had been allocated. Costs, parts made far from Southern territory and other items were mentioned in the reasons to reject the allocation (apparently not requested by the railroad).

 

Of the multiple examples where cars were allocated but not accepted/wanted by the Southern, the letter sent to Southern President Fairfax Harrison (attached) Nov 14, 1918 resulted in the memo sent by “FH” the next day. Southern managements always resented any attempt at “Government Control” but forcing the railroad to spend money they did not think justifiable was too much.

 

Ike

 

 

On 04/12/2021 12:18 PM Schuyler Larrabee via groups.io <schuyler.larrabee@...> wrote:

 

 

I am going to be painting the attached caboose model for a friend.  I have three questions:

 

1. Can anyone identify this model?  Original date of manufacture?  Importer? Maker?  The box shown with the caboose is evidently the original box, based on the “packing” being the same or very similar to the packing I’ve seen in Max Gray models I’ve bought in original packaging.  There are no markings on the model or on or in the box, other than the pencil notation on the end of the cover.  It’s a very nice model, very well built and seems to be accurate.
   
   
2. The owner of the model has requested I paint it using P-B-L “Rio Grande Freight Car Color.”  If I am not mistaken, that is an acrylic paint, and I am very much disinclined to use an acrylic paint (N.B.: don’t bother to try to tell me that they are easy to use, just as good, clearly the right color or any of that.  Maybe they are in the right hands, but based on my experiences, my hands are not the right hands.  I stick to lacquers, period.)  So are there recommendations among all the experts on this list for a good color in a lacquer paint?  Preferably Scalecoat?
   
   
3. Decals?

 

TIA

 

Schuyler

Can’t help with the exact color issue, but we have D&RGW shorty caboose no.0526 here at the Huckleberry Railroad in Flint, MI. Sadly for your question, the cabose has been repainted several times over its lifetime, and was recenty totally restored (frame-up) here at HRR just a few years ago. It’s now about 80% new wood, though we reused what we could if it remained structurally sound.

On Apr 12, 2021, at 3:16 PM, Todd Sullivan via groups.io <sullivant41@...> wrote:

Schuyler,

I don't want to tout the obvious, but the PFM label on the caboose (the bottom, I assume) identifies it as a PFM product, and it definitely has the appearance of a D&RGW narrow gauge caboose with 4 wheel trucks.I'm not sufficiently conversant with Rio Grande ng cabooses to be able to suggest a number or series, but there are photos on Google that show several of these short cabooses with numbers in the 0500 series.

Todd Sullivan

There is an entry on the BrassTrains.com website that looks a lot like your model that indicates it was imported by PFM in 1964.  The detail on your model looks to be about that vintage.  Although this site claims the builder was Katsumi, I believe United may have utilized a number of builders to produce models under their name.  PFM was a heavy user of United.

https://www.brasstrains.com/BrassGuide/Pdg/Detail/27059/HOn3-Rolling-Stock-Caboose-Pacific-Fast-Mail-Denver-Rio-Grande-Western-CABOOSE

Mark Rossiter

The PFM catalogue pictures show truss rods and two trucks on the caboose.  The 9^th Edition does not have a reference to the date of its issuance but likely 1965-66. 

Gary Laakso

That helps, Gary.  What year is the 9^th edition?

In response to Todd, the label (yes, on the bottom there was something over it) doesn’t say PFM, it simply says United

Scale Models

And at the bottom

Tokyo Japan

Schuyler

The PFE 1963 catalogue (8^th Edition) shows two windows on the side on the smoke stack side.   The same caboose with the dual windows on the smokestack side is shown in the 7^th Edition catalogue.  The 9^th edition catalogue shows two windows on the non-smoke stack side.

Gary Laakso

Schuyler,

I don't want to tout the obvious, but the PFM label on the caboose (the bottom, I assume) identifies it as a PFM product, and it definitely has the appearance of a D&RGW narrow gauge caboose with 4 wheel trucks.I'm not sufficiently conversant with Rio Grande ng cabooses to be able to suggest a number or series, but there are photos on Google that show several of these short cabooses with numbers in the 0500 series.

Todd Sullivan