Date   

Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management,What? Think again!

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Viv Brice wrote:
Now I'm an SPF and proud of it, but I recognise that there are others that may not be!! I also recognise that SPFs can be particularly one-eyed and vehement in defence of their favourite railroad.
However, it still surprises me that there is another group, equally one-eyed and vehement, and that is the Pennsy bashers. The Pennsy, love it or hate it, was and will always be an American railroad icon.
You may not know, Viv, that among the Pennsy bashers were many officials of other railroads that had to deal with Pennsy officials. Their unending arrogance was one reason; the minimal basis in fact for that arrogance was another.

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: cover of PRM vol. 2

ed_mines
 

I think we all can agree (inspite of east-west tensions) that this is a
terrific photo, one of the best and most memorable covers ever.

I'm sorry Ted didn't continue the callender this year, Maybe next year?

Ted, continue those color covers!

Ed


PRR F30A as LV flat

Bud Rindfleisch
 

Richard,
In your post about the PRR F30A flats you mentioned the 50 that LV bought in 1950. Were they clones of the Pennsy car? Or were the stake pockets spaced differently? Only asking as I've seen LV piggyback flats made from some F30A "appearing" cars that had fewer stake pockets that what was typical. Maybe a modification done by the LV shops.
Thanks,
Bud Rindfleisch


Re: NH flat (was Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management)

Tim O'Connor
 

Not yet. Is the brake stand a brass casting or is it resin?

Tim O'

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: <branchline@...>

the New Haven did have some unique cars, including a 50' FLAT CAR,
a very nice kit of which is currently available from Speedwitch. Has anybody
else built one?


HO Markings for SP B-70-1 thru -5?

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Can anyone recommend an HO marking set for SP B-70-1 thru -5 RBLs?

Thx,
KL


Re: PRR freight cars (was Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management)

Tim O'Connor
 

Ok, Bill. To get back to freight cars, there are hundreds, thousands, of examples
of proprietary freight car designs as well as modifications to 'standard' designs
that ultimately did not pan out. So the PRR bought an over-designed flat car? Is
this the first time someone overdesigned a freight car? Why did the UP insist on
using Cor-Ten steel in its freight cars to save a few hundred pounds of steel, at
the added complexity of extra side posts stiffeners and rivets (hence, alternate
center rivets or ACR) when just about every other owner was content using the
AAR standard design? And why did SP buy so many thousands of 10'0" box
cars years after most other railroads had accepted 10'6" as a standard? For
that matter, think of the vast numbers of 40' box cars built after WWII that were
retired before their normal lifespans because they were technically obsolete
before 1970. The PRR's design department is not to blame for the decline of
the PRR. That is all that I meant by that being a 'silly' argument.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

I know this is straying from STMFC topic, but don't know what list electrification belongs on, so I'll try to make it brief.

The primary reason that electrification economics didn't work in the U. S. is traffic density. Look at the train frequency elsewhere in the world whre there is a lot of electrification and you'll see many lines that far exceed anything in the U.S. Also those lines have to fit freight into dense passenger traffic, which means the acceleration characteristics of electrics are vital. Also the U.s. had more efficient diesle motive power (economic efficiency that is, not technical excellence).

It was not a management omission or failure that U.S. railroads didn't electrify. Many looked at it but the numbers didn't comopute to justify the investment. I could tell you about one such study that I worked on, but the date would send me to jail and the jailer seems to be looking hard for victims today. Anyone want to start a U.S. electrification history group ?


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

Bruce Smith
 

On Mar 22, 2007, at 11:15 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:
But only the PRR set out to
electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they
had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when
the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore.
OK, I know that it still hurts to know that the PRR carried 35% MORE fresh fruits and veggies than Richard's beloved AT&SF circa 1950, but it is time to integrate some FACTS into this part of the discussion.<VBG>

Electrification was one of the bright points in what was (as Richard has pointed out) an otherwise often mediocre post-1920s mechanical department. When the PRR expanded its electrification to the freight lines and Harrisburg in 1938, it resulted in incredible increases in efficiency when compared to steam. This was, of course, because electrics did not require stops for coal and water, and were much faster to service. This was particularly true for the freight lines, where steam era freight cars could be handled without fuel/water stops between Enola, Potomac (Virginia), Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York (New Jersey). The tonnage miles and passengers carried on the PRR during WWII speak to that. It is particularly impressive in light of the fact that PRR engineers did their best to mess it up by using steam locomotive wheel arrangements for the early electrics (O1, P5, L6). At the time, the cost of the infrastructure was more than aptly compensated by the efficiencies gained (and the fact that the taxpayer paid for much of it as part of recovery from the Depression).

The death of the expansion of electrification was the diesel, which eliminated the need for the costly infrastructure while maintaining the advantages. However, I will point out that the PRRs electrified regions continued to compete favorably with the diesel in costs when handling freight cars throughout the steam era (and well into the diesel era - the reasons for the cessation of freight haulage on the former PRR electrified tracks are many, generally political and not economic and waaaay out of scope for this list). When cost analyses were performed, it was judged less costly to buy new electrics than to dieselize the electrified zone, even though the electric locomotives were more expensive on a per capita basis. Thus the only thing that stymied expansion was the cost of NEW infrastructure, not the cost of maintaining the old.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

branchline@...
 

Umm.... before Ted jumps on this one Tim let's just point out that the electrification north of NYC that was extended to Boston actually belonged to the New Haven, not the PRR

The PRR had more FREIGHT CARS than the New Haven, but the New Haven did have some unique cars, including a 50' FLAT CAR, a very nice kit of which is currently available from Speedwitch. Has anybody else built one?

Bill Schneider - desperately trying to get back on track

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2007 6:34 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management


Richard Hendrickson wrote

>> But only the PRR set out to electrify an entire (and very large)
>> railroad, stuck with it until they had electrified about half of
>> their main lines

Say what? Less than 500 miles of electrified mainline is 1/2 of their
mainlines? And nearly ALL of that electrification remains in place
today, and has been recently greatly expanded (to Boston). Meanwhile
your examples of GN, MILW are long gone, while the SP abandoned all
of its extensive electrification (exceeding the PRR's mileage by a
good margin) long ago. Nope, sorry, I ain't buying it. PRR was a
victim of geography and massive shifts in the manufacturing economy,
just as western railroads were saved by it. They all suffered from
poor public policy and disinvestment.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management,What? Think again!

Viv Brice
 

Now I'm an SPF and proud of it, but I recognise that there are others that
may not be!! I also recognise that SPFs can be particularly one-eyed and
vehement in defence of their favourite railroad.
However, it still surprises me that there is another group, equally one-eyed
and vehement, and that is the Pennsy bashers. The Pennsy, love it or hate
it, was and will always be an American railroad icon.

My two pennorth (sorry, two cents) worth.

Viv Brice,
An SPF from down under

_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
tgregmrtn@...
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2007 4:03 pm
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management,What? Think again!



Now, Now gentlemen be nice,

Tim writes:
"I agree the PRR was arrogant, but so were most other railroads -- pride and

tunnel vision were widespread traits of railroad management."

And have things changed? (chuckle) At least the PRR keeps the conversation
alive and stimulating just as their freight equipment did.

Then Richard writes:

"Consider the F30A flat cars as an example of PRR's perversity in freight
car design... (snip) Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design
(there being, at the time, no other 70 ton flats with cast steel
underframes)
Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design (there being, at the
time, no other

Not so... The N&W received this design of cars new in 1954 IIRC albeit not
cast but welded just as the F30Ds were. Now, wait before you say it is not
the
same, the design of the car is the same but the fabrication was different.
Don't forget they/PRR got these over priced monoliths produced on tax payers

dollars, now I call that creative marketing... Not perverse, CREATIVE... We
build 'um, we get them recommended, and you pay for them. Very Creative!
Now,
what other Railroad can say that? Gotta love 'um.... Now how else are you
gonna live in the Hamptons and run a RR into the ground... Hmmmm?


Greg Martin
A Member of a Gang of Four.

************************************** AOL now offers free email to
everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.
<http://www.aol.com.> com.


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

Tim O'Connor
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote

But only the PRR set out to electrify an entire (and very large)
railroad, stuck with it until they had electrified about half of
their main lines
Say what? Less than 500 miles of electrified mainline is 1/2 of their
mainlines? And nearly ALL of that electrification remains in place
today, and has been recently greatly expanded (to Boston). Meanwhile
your examples of GN, MILW are long gone, while the SP abandoned all
of its extensive electrification (exceeding the PRR's mileage by a
good margin) long ago. Nope, sorry, I ain't buying it. PRR was a
victim of geography and massive shifts in the manufacturing economy,
just as western railroads were saved by it. They all suffered from
poor public policy and disinvestment.

Tim O'Connor


Re: cover of PRM vol. 2

al_brown03
 

Notice also the reporting marks of the car. PRR 300000, no kidding,
class GS.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


--- In STMFC@..., Frederick Freitas <prrinvt@...> wrote:

ED,

It appears to be bundles of steel/ metalic items wraped
against weather.

Fred Freitas

ed_mines <ed_mines@...> wrote:
Can anyone identify the white load in the gon on the
right on the cover
of PRM col. 2?

Ed






---------------------------------
TV dinner still cooling?
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.

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


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

destron@...
 

But only the PRR set out to
electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they
had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when
the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore.
Unfortunately it's not on topic, but I have always been curious why
electrification was never very successful on this continent, where it has
had enormous success elsewhere.


Back to freight cars. <snip> Though the Pennsy claimed to be leaders in
engineering, their followers were almost non-existent;
Well, I do think in many ways they did do things ahead of their time. If
nothing else, it's great for the modeler. :)

Frank Valoczy


Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 22, 2007, at 5:48 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

The pre-eminence of the Pennsy, both its operating and mechanical
departments, peaked early in the 20th century and rapidly declined
thereafter owing to arrogance and bad management, with the
post-World-War-I squandering of capital on its ill-conceived
electrification project hastening its eventual demise.
Oh that's just silly. The SP had "ill-conceived elecrification"
projects, and built large new passenger terminals long after the
decline in passenger traffic was well under way. I agree the PRR
was arrogant, but so were most other railroads -- pride and tunnel
vision were widespread traits of railroad management.
Come now, Tim, statements aren't silly just because you don't happen to agree with them. Numerous RRs considered electrification, especially on mountainous districts with a lot of tunnels, and most of them ran the numbers and decided against it (though it apparently worked well enough for the GN and MILW in terrain whose difficulty the Pennsy's management couldn't even imagine). But only the PRR set out to electrify an entire (and very large) railroad, stuck with it until they had electrified about half of their main lines, and gave up only when the ruinous expense and doubtful benefits became too obvious to ignore. I have no argument with your statement that "pride and tunnel vision were widespread traits of railroad management," but PRR management carried those traits to extremes which were rendered especially obvious by the railroad's sheer size. The bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Back to freight cars. Consider the F30A flat cars as an example of PRR's perversity in freight car design. Granted, they were an engineering innovation in their use of one piece cast steel underframes, but the castings were excessively complicated, costy, and over-designed. Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design (there being, at the time, no other 70 ton flats with cast steel underframes), no other RRs got them, with the single exception of 50 cars purchased by the LV in 1950. By contrast, when GSC developed much simpler and less costly castings for 70 ton flat cars, other RRs bought them by the hundreds. Though the Pennsy claimed to be leaders in engineering, their followers were almost non-existent; the mechanical officers of most other RRs considered the PRR people to be both arrogant and unrealistic and were more than happy to see them march off to the beat of their own drum while the rest of the industry went in other directions.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Tichy USRA boxcar weights

bdg1210 <Bruce_Griffin@...>
 

Jim,

Mine has the nuts, while I don't know off hand there nominal size, I
measured them for you. They are six sided and are .7347 inches on the
wrench flats (minimum exterior dimension) and the interior dimension
(clearance, inside of threads) .4228 inches, chromed steel. Height is
.4227 inches. I think its about a 1/2 inch course thread nut, maybe
one size up. Been a while since I fooled with full-size stuff.

Regards,
Bruce D. Griffin
Summerfield, NC

--- In STMFC@..., James Mischke <jmischke@...> wrote:



I notice that the Tichy USRA boxcar kit has no weights. The
floor does have hexagonal ridges to accept a pair of hex nuts.
The directions are silent on weights.

What size hex nuts accomodate these features? Are they about
an ounce each? Is that hex nut size good for boxcars in
general?


Re: Going Bananas ...

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Art Marr writes:

"Paul,
You must have dealt with Local 70! (Oakland-SF)"

Perhaps. Most of the members won't know...I guess. Clang!!

It's a good idea to heed warnings by the head judge. Now...wonder where that soup is that I cooked up last October when moderate jail was full? Oh yeah...I remember now. I gave some of it to the neighbor's cat. Haven't seen him since. Should be right tasty by now.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Pennsy, Arrogance, and Bad Management,What? Think again!

Greg Martin
 

Now, Now gentlemen be nice,

Tim writes:
"I agree the PRR was arrogant, but so were most other railroads -- pride and
tunnel vision were widespread traits of railroad management."

And have things changed? (chuckle) At least the PRR keeps the conversation
alive and stimulating just as their freight equipment did.

Then Richard writes:

"Consider the F30A flat cars as an example of PRR's perversity in freight
car design... (snip) Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design
(there being, at the time, no other 70 ton flats with cast steel underframes)
Though adopted as an AAR "recommended practice" design (there being, at the
time, no other

Not so... The N&W received this design of cars new in 1954 IIRC albeit not
cast but welded just as the F30Ds were. Now, wait before you say it is not the
same, the design of the car is the same but the fabrication was different.
Don't forget they/PRR got these over priced monoliths produced on tax payers
dollars, now I call that creative marketing... Not perverse, CREATIVE... We
build 'um, we get them recommended, and you pay for them. Very Creative! Now,
what other Railroad can say that? Gotta love 'um.... Now how else are you
gonna live in the Hamptons and run a RR into the ground... Hmmmm?


Greg Martin
A Member of a Gang of Four.



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


Re: Going Bananas ...

abmarr2
 

Paul,
You must have dealt with Local 70! (Oakland-SF)

Art Marr
Reno, NV

----- Original Message -----
From: Paul
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 3:10 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Going Bananas ...


Dave:

Having to deal with (your words) or work with both the Brotherhoods and
Teamsters, I would much rather work with the Brotherhoods. I found them
much easier to work with and much less militant.

Paul C. Koehler

_____


.


Alps decal printer for hire?

MDelvec952
 

Would someone with a working Alps decal printer be willing to help a freight
car fan on short notice?

There is a retirement happening next week at work, and I'd like to have a
line of type and reporting marks and car numbers for a presentation. Simple
stuff, white letters. This fellow unloaded tank cars since the days when tank
cars had wooden running boards and vertical staff brakes. Since the Weaver
50' tank car exactly represents a big part of current fleet at work, that's
the basis for this presentation.

Name your price.

Please contact me off list at _mdelvec952@...
(mailto:mdelvec952@...) or _michael.j.delvecchio@...
(mailto:michael.j.delvecchio@...) .

Thanks very much in advance. In a bind -- a friend nearby who has a
printer hasn't been able to get to it for a month.

My appologies for wasting the bandwith for most of you.

Mike Del Vecchio



************************************** AOL now offers free email to everyone.
Find out more about what's free from AOL at http://www.aol.com.


ADMIN: The Scope of the STMFC

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

I think it's a good time to remind the members of the rules of the STMFC regarding "scope". The rules clearly state:

"The purpose of the group is to discuss all aspects of North American
standard gauge freight cars of the steam era [ 1900-1960 ]. The objectives
include the sharing of
information about railroad freight cars including their operation, cargos,
distribution and the various techniques of building
models of them. ALL SUBJECTS OTHER THAN THOSE DIRECTLY ASSOCIATED WITH STEAM
ERA FREIGHT
CARS ARE PROHIBITED FROM MEMBER MESSAGES."

I decided earlier today to allow some discussion about steam locos as they relate to frt train operations. Such discussions AND discussions about products carried in frt cars may at any time be terminated by STMFC mgt when such discussions seem to be getting too far afield from our primary subject...frt cars.

So, discussions about bananas is now terminated except in those cases directly associated with frt cars.

OTOH, discussions about RR mgt with regard to union activities, RR mgt in general and/or unions in general are NOT within the scope of the STMFC and those continuing such discussions after this reminder are at risk of having to develop a taste for the food in Moderate Jail [ now where did I put the key? ].

Thanks.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

135681 - 135700 of 196865