Date   

Re: Obscure Northeastern Short Lines

branchline@...
 

The Good Doctor quips:

I do draw the line at the NYO&W, however (with apologies to
Bill Schneider), since most of its freight cars were too decrepit to
make it very far off line.
Well now! I have here a really nice photo of an O&W USRA hopper sent to me by some strange fellow in a far-off land..... Let me see now -

Ah, here it is.... Reweigh - AV (Middletown, O&W) 2-45, repack... could this be..... 4-24-46, N.P. UP. RR. (Mike might know where that is.) Hmmmmmmm....

Would you like the photo back for reference Richard? :>)

Bill


Re: Converting Red Caboose PFE Bettendorf underframes to built-ups

Andy Carlson
 

I no longer have these parts to offer to you guys.
Thanks for the quick responses.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

--- Andy Carlson <midcentury@...> wrote:

I have been asked by several people (all members of
this list) for me to make available Terry Wegmann's
HO
PFE built-up Underframe detail parts for the purpose
of applying to the Red Caboose Wood bodied ice
reefers.


Re: Canadian open hoppers in USA

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

mcindoefalls wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:

Most curious is the fact that fully half of the tonnage reported by
the Bureau as "delivered to US points" is attributed to either the
Maine Central or the (former) Pere Marquette.
The "Maine Central" traffic could have been Nova Scotia coal going to
Maine paper mills. Now, I wonder if it was an all-rail routing (CN
Nova Scotia to CP St. John to MEC Mattawamkeag) or if a water haul
was involved (collier to Searsport or Bucksport, Maine, perhaps?).
In the U.S., originating means mine to rail. Further, water to rail
shipments were classified as rail to rail, meaning whomever received it and
moving it once again classified it as received and not as originating. I
don't know if the Canadian Bureau used the same thinking but taking a guess
I'd say it probably did.

At any rate the key point is not much coal (or anything else for that
matter) moved south.

Dave Nelson


Thank You

Larry Grubb <larry450sl@...>
 

To everyone who has contacted me both on and off list (except for one individual) regarding the purchase of Life-Like Products by Wm. K. Walthers, thank you for your concern and support. Unfortunately, I will be travelling a lot in the next 45 days and will not be able to respond as quickly as I normally do to inquiries. On the plus side, I like both Chinese food and bratwurst.
Regards,
Larry Grubb

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: Canadian open hoppers in USA

mcindoefalls
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <muskoka@c...> wrote:

Most curious is the fact that fully half of the tonnage reported by
the
Bureau as "delivered to US points" is attributed to either the Maine
Central
or the (former) Pere Marquette.
The "Maine Central" traffic could have been Nova Scotia coal going to
Maine paper mills. Now, I wonder if it was an all-rail routing (CN
Nova Scotia to CP St. John to MEC Mattawamkeag) or if a water haul was
involved (collier to Searsport or Bucksport, Maine, perhaps?).

Walt Lankenau


Re: Rutland (was something or other)

Tim O'Connor
 

Dick Dermody wrote

Richard Hendrickson wrote;

"And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a
Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco
than anything the Rutland ever owned."

Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced in
the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but more
than a trifle better than a Mikado.

Dick, those cute little Rutland "Mountains" (hee hee!) would have made
a light between-meals snack for a Great Northern O-8 Mike... :-)

Tim O'Connor


Re: Status of the Rutland (was Hoppers to and From Canada)

Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

englishintroy wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:
The fact is that the Rutland
WAS "an obscure northeastern short line."

Richard, shortline devotees will tell you that the Rutland was far too
big of a railroad to qualify as a shortline at all, but others of more
flexible sensibility might accept it to say that the Rutland was
a "MAJOR northeastern short line".

IMO, the most accurate summation would be to describe the Rutland as
an "obscure northeastern Class I", which is a fact and what makes the
road attractive to me. Were it simply a shortline, I'd have no more
interest in it than any of the many other northeatsern shortlines.

Finally, to bore a few you still more, but to relate at least a little
to freight cars, the Rutland, having been once corporately related to
the vast New York Central, possessed many freight cars that were exact
duplicates of NYC's cars. This is something no shortline could claim.
In 1922, the six New England governors were alarmed at the state of the railroads in New England which were mainly an operating disaster. Their concerns were that the regional economy would collapse. Thus they did what all politicians do - set up a committee to define the problem and, then, make recommendations. The "New England Governors' Commission for a Comprehensive Transportation Policy" (gratefully shortened to the "Storrow Commission" ) issued two reports of which I am aware - in June 1923 and May 1931.

While the Storrow Commission could define the roles of all the Class I Railroads in New England, they gave up trying define the role of the Rutland which was half owned by the NYC and half owned by the New Haven. The Rutland was a step child.

Thus, financiers were unwilling to lend the Rutland to upgrade their property while massive amounts of funds became available to both the New Haven and B&M to modernize their properties. The results of the modernization of the B&M was to decrease freight train miles by 21% and freight train hours 31% between 1925 and 1929 while total freight car miles increased 6% and revenue ton miles increased only 1% in the same period. The Rutland's freight car miles decreased 15% (no RUT freight train hour data available) while total car miles decreased 5% and revenue ton miles 7% in the same 1925-29 period. The B&M had increases in car and revenue ton miles with a greater decrease in train miles than the Rutland which had declines in both car miles and revenue ton miles.

While the Rutland tried to remain a through car line up until its end in 1961, it consistently lost "market share" despite having a very aggressive sales forces after WW II.

Tim Gilbert


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

armprem
 

Faster yes,but different terrain.Do you remember that the Rutland once
owned ships?(That is until the government scuttled the fleet).This thread is
going nowhere.We all enjoy what we saw or experienced ..Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:07 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Hoppers to and From Canada


On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote;

"And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the
throttle of a
Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam
loco
than anything the Rutland ever owned."

Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever
produced in
the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but
more
than a trifle better than a Mikado.
Dick, I'll keep this short, as this isn't the steam loco list. I had,
indeed, forgotten about the Rutland's 4-8-2s, which were handsome and
capable locos for their size (though there were only four of them and
they didn't last long). With 73" drivers they were doubtless faster
than a typical western Mike but weighed little more and developed
considerably less tractive effort. A Santa Fe 2-8-2 built in the
mid-1920s would start more train, keep it moving better on grades, run
much farther between water stops with its 15K gal. tender, and after
modernization with disc main drivers was capable of sustained speeds in
the 60s, probably as fast or faster than freight trains ever ran on the
Rutland. "More than a trifle better?" I don't think so.




Yahoo! Groups Links









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 7/18/05


Re: Digest Number 2559

Malcolm H. Houck
 

In a message dated 7/20/2005 4:28:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
STMFC@... writes:
I do draw the line at the NYO&W, however (with apologies to
Bill Schneider), since most of its freight cars were too decrepit to
make it very far off line.
Ah, yes............but the NYO&W Class P 2-8-0s were the heaviest of that
type, when delivered, and they provided yeoman service until the end of steam.
Also don't forget the lumbering Bullmoose 2-10-2 type, with tow pushing and one
pulling would roll 100 loaded hopper cars up out of Forest City. Nothing is
perhaps more regal looking (some D &H types aside) that an O&W "Light 400"
4-8-2, clean boiler, high headlight and all.

One needn't worry doubt modeling O&W freight cars. Not only were they elderly
and decrepit, they were so few in number as to be, beyond steel hoppers (and
before that wood hoppers in the thousands) to be rarely seen anywhere off
line. Milk cars (for another list) were plentiful, but also nary a time off line.
The intrigue is the motive power...............

Mal Houck


Re: Status of the Rutland (was Hoppers to and From Canada)

Jeff English
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@o...>
wrote:
The fact is that the Rutland
WAS "an obscure northeastern short line."

Richard, shortline devotees will tell you that the Rutland was far too
big of a railroad to qualify as a shortline at all, but others of more
flexible sensibility might accept it to say that the Rutland was
a "MAJOR northeastern short line".

IMO, the most accurate summation would be to describe the Rutland as
an "obscure northeastern Class I", which is a fact and what makes the
road attractive to me. Were it simply a shortline, I'd have no more
interest in it than any of the many other northeatsern shortlines.

Finally, to bore a few you still more, but to relate at least a little
to freight cars, the Rutland, having been once corporately related to
the vast New York Central, possessed many freight cars that were exact
duplicates of NYC's cars. This is something no shortline could claim.

Jeff English
Troy, New York


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Dermody wrote:
Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced in
the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but more
than a trifle better than a Mikado.
Want to compare tractive effort, sir?

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


Re: Canadian open hoppers in USA

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Max Carey wrote:
"I am guessing that a lot of coal moved from the USA into Canada by
rail during the steam era, and it seems reasonable that some of it
may have moved on hoppers of Canadian railroads. However, I can't
recall ever actually seeing a Canadian hopper in the States back
then. I would appreciate information on the subject, including
specifics on the names of the Canadian roads and the kinds of cargo."

If 1956 is a suitable example, the answer then is no, not much Canadian
coal moved south by rail (Canada Bureau of Statistics, 1956: 431k tons of
Bit and 235k tons of Anthracite). This is less than a third of one percent
of US coal shipments. FWIW, tonnage dropped considerably in 1957.
Substantial amounts of US originated coal moved north to Canada tho.

Most curious is the fact that fully half of the tonnage reported by the
Bureau as "delivered to US points" is attributed to either the Maine Central
or the (former) Pere Marquette. I don't know what significance this has...
perhaps those more fmailiar with the region can explain.

About 3/4 of the rest originated in the west and it's known that a good
portion of this tonnage was handed over to the Spokane International.

Hope this helps.

Dave Nelson


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote;

"And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a
Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco
than anything the Rutland ever owned."

Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced in
the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but more
than a trifle better than a Mikado.
Dick, I'll keep this short, as this isn't the steam loco list. I had, indeed, forgotten about the Rutland's 4-8-2s, which were handsome and capable locos for their size (though there were only four of them and they didn't last long). With 73" drivers they were doubtless faster than a typical western Mike but weighed little more and developed considerably less tractive effort. A Santa Fe 2-8-2 built in the mid-1920s would start more train, keep it moving better on grades, run much farther between water stops with its 15K gal. tender, and after modernization with disc main drivers was capable of sustained speeds in the 60s, probably as fast or faster than freight trains ever ran on the Rutland. "More than a trifle better?" I don't think so.


Re: Obscure Northeastern Short Lines

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:54 PM, Marty McGuirk wrote:

Ah, but I seem to recall -- way down deep in the memory banks --
seeing a Rutland flatcar with a marble load built by none other
than Richard himself.

Does that mean the good doctor is, of all things, a "Rutland"
modeler????
Sure. When it comes to freight cars, I model anything that might have turned up in Southern Calif. in the late '40s, which includes the Rutland flat car in question. I even have a couple of models of Central of Vermont freight cars, speaking of obscure northeastern short lines. I do draw the line at the NYO&W, however (with apologies to Bill Schneider), since most of its freight cars were too decrepit to make it very far off line. And Montour coal hoppers? Puhleeze.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:46 PM, armand wrote:

Richard, I'll bet you don't even like the Pennsy or the NYC.
Armand, let's just say that I think both RRs are over-rated by their admirers. The Pennsy, in particular, peaked early and went steadily downhill after it squandered its capital on electrification, and its much-vaunted mechanical department turned into a painfully bad joke in the later years of the steam era. What can you say in favor of an engineering staff whose only successful steam loco after the M1 was a design they borrowed from the C&O? As for freight cars, the Pennsy's answer to the AAR box car design was the X37? Give me, as we say, a break. NYC did better, staying relatively current in freight car design (though saddled with a vast amount of obsolete rolling stock). But though the last generation of NYC steam locos were well designed, line clearance limitations prevented them from achieving either the performance or the endurance of the larger western locos. Both NYC and PRR were major RRs in terms of traffic volume, but neither were even close to the cutting edge of RR technology and, with few exceptions, their operational practices were still stuck in the 19th century. The Pennsy, in particular, never did understand fast freight or perishable traffic; they tended to treat every shipment as though it were a load of coal. In truth, there aren't many eastern RRs I admire; maybe the Erie and the NKP, which at least understood how to expedite freight traffic because they had to in order to survive.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

Richard Dermody <ddermody@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote;

"And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a
Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco
than anything the Rutland ever owned."

Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced in
the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but more
than a trifle better than a Mikado.

Dick


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

--How
could
any right-thinking model railroader NOT be fascinated by
the Rutland?

Ah, but I seem to recall -- way down deep in the memory banks --
seeing a Rutland flatcar with a marble load built by none other
than Richard himself.

Does that mean the good doctor is, of all things, a "Rutland"
modeler????

Marty


Re: Merger mania

Greg Martin
 

Chuck,

Your post makes more sense than speculating on what now...

Greg Martin

-----Original Message-----
From: raildata@...
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:45:45 EDT
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Merger mania


While we may not be happy with everything Walthers produces and how they run
their business, I think we owe them a vote of confidence that they feel there
is enough of a future in the model railroad scale hobby to invest capital in
it...a rare phenomena these days!

Chuck Y
Boulder CO








Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Class II and III vs. Class I RR's (Was RE: Hoppers to & From Canada)

Brian Termunde
 

In a message dated 7/19/2005 7:41:18 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
armprem@... writes:

Richard, I'll bet you don't even like the Pennsy or the NYC.<g>Armand Premo


---> What's there to like about two eastern has beens? <VBG - said entirely
as a joke!>

---> Seriously, I once was interested in only the majors, mostly in the
West. I wouldn't take a look at a shortline as they were boring! What a mistake.
Shortlines are great! They are easy to get a grip on. You can model one in a
reasonable space and in many cases, model their complete roster too! Try that
with Espee, Santa Fe or the Central or the Non-Standard RR of Pennsylvania!

--> Clearly each has their appeal, and I think that I have the best of both
worlds with my Grand Canyon District of the Santa Fe. It's a shortline
railway, as well as being the stepchild of a Class I railway. The other ironic
thing about my choice of prototypes; I was always more interested in the Rio
Grande, Union Pacific and even that Standard RR of California then I was Uncle
John! Now here I am, surrounded by UP, modeling the Santa Fe! In steam of
course, hauling steam era freight cars (added to ensure that I am at least
somewhat on topic! <G>)


Take Care!

Brian R. Termunde
West Jordan, Utah

"Ship and Travel the Grand Canyon Line!"
Grand Canyon Railway
Utah District


Re: Hoppers to and From Canada

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
I'll admit the Rutland
was...well, quaint. But for those of us who grew up with mainline
steam in the west, "quaint" palls quickly. I was raised on a steady
diet of Santa Fe 2900s and 2-10-2s, SP GS-4s and cab-forwards, and UP
FEFs and Challengers. I was fortunate to witness both Cajon and
Tehachapi when the motive power was almost all steam. I once rode the
cab of a 2900 4-8-4 from Barstow to Needles, almost 500 tons of
locomotive pulling a thirteen car mostly-heavyweight train at 80-100
mph. And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the
throttle of a Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe,
was more steam loco than anything the Rutland ever owned.
The size issue is one aspect; another is "lovable loser" railroads, which seem to appeal disproportionately to modelers. One could name the O&W in this category; other struggling roads which finally sank beneath the waves despite distinctive style included the WP and the WM. Now I could see attractive reasons to model either of the latter, but not because they were big-time railroads.
And let's not even get started on "stuff" like the RGS, which lost its reason for being in the 1893 Sherman Act, before the road was even completed. That has to be an ultimate railroad loser in the business sense--despite its all-world scenery.

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

153801 - 153820 of 197105