Date   

Re: SLRX Car Lading / also Varney.

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Thanks Rick for all the detail about SLRX.. Your comment about Varney was interesting. They were nice kits, but I've never had a feeling of the extent to which lettering on them was for cars that actually existed. I'll use them all when I build a home layout because my main interest is a realistic simulation of operations and I don' t look too hard at the car details. I'll not take that one to run in our 50's club operating sessions so that our resident nitpickers can't fuss about it.

Also in regard to Varney, I'm taking out cars that haven't been used for a number of years. I see that the plastic roofwalks and ice hatches have bent and whitened. I'd like to hear from anyone who may have rehabilitated some of those cars.


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


Re: Billboard Reefers

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

The worst problem in my opinion was that the per diem that the railroads had pay to haul long distance shipments in the leased cars was so great that the lessees' lease cost was more than covered by the per diem. In essence they were leasing the cars for free. Only a fool wouldn't take advantage of such a situation. As a result there were twice as many reefers as needed in 1930 and the ones sitting idle belonged to the railroads. This is also covered in the 1934 ICC decision. - Al Westerfield

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Billboard Reefers



I agree with you, Tony. :-) I always understood the intention of
the 'ban' was to curb such abuses, whereas advertisement of one's
own products on one's own freight cars (covered hoppers, reefers,
box cars) did not incur so much regulatory wrath. Which may have
something to do with why it's not hard to find photos of freight
cars carrying product advertising in the 1950's and especially
from the 1960's onwards.

If you think about it, once the railroads began to put passenger
train advertising on their freight cars, you had railroads forced
to carry freight cars that advertised competitors' services! Here
the 'injured party' would be a railroad and not a shipper, so maybe
the ICC didn't consider it to be unfair. Or maybe it was just such
a longstanding practice that no one challenged it.

Tim O'Connor

>Kurt Laughlin wrote:
>> Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was
>> that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with
>> their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the
>> free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal
>> rebate for the large shippers.
>
> As I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of
>the abuses which the ICC stepped in to correct. The free advertising
>was indeed ruled a rebate, but this is summarized briefly in the
>ruling, while there are pages and pages on the remainder of the docket
>issues. (The biggest had to do with mileage-charge abuses by roundabout
>or unnecessary car movements, and with lease contracts in which
>shippers had an incentive to create extra mileage.) It is my impression
>from reading some of the ICC testimony that the assignment of one
>lessee's cars to another shipper was unusual, but the free advertising,
>not offered to smaller shippers, was a really big complaint.
>
>Tony Thompson


Re: Billboard Reefers

Tim O'Connor
 

I agree with you, Tony. :-) I always understood the intention of
the 'ban' was to curb such abuses, whereas advertisement of one's
own products on one's own freight cars (covered hoppers, reefers,
box cars) did not incur so much regulatory wrath. Which may have
something to do with why it's not hard to find photos of freight
cars carrying product advertising in the 1950's and especially
from the 1960's onwards.

If you think about it, once the railroads began to put passenger
train advertising on their freight cars, you had railroads forced
to carry freight cars that advertised competitors' services! Here
the 'injured party' would be a railroad and not a shipper, so maybe
the ICC didn't consider it to be unfair. Or maybe it was just such
a longstanding practice that no one challenged it.

Tim O'Connor

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was
that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with
their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the
free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal
rebate for the large shippers.
As I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of
the abuses which the ICC stepped in to correct. The free advertising
was indeed ruled a rebate, but this is summarized briefly in the
ruling, while there are pages and pages on the remainder of the docket
issues. (The biggest had to do with mileage-charge abuses by roundabout
or unnecessary car movements, and with lease contracts in which
shippers had an incentive to create extra mileage.) It is my impression
from reading some of the ICC testimony that the assignment of one
lessee's cars to another shipper was unusual, but the free advertising,
not offered to smaller shippers, was a really big complaint.

Tony Thompson


Re: Billboard Reefers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal rebate for the large shippers.
As I stated back in 2002, this aspect was a very small part of the abuses which the ICC stepped in to correct. The free advertising was indeed ruled a rebate, but this is summarized briefly in the ruling, while there are pages and pages on the remainder of the docket issues. (The biggest had to do with mileage-charge abuses by roundabout or unnecessary car movements, and with lease contracts in which shippers had an incentive to create extra mileage.) It is my impression from reading some of the ICC testimony that the assignment of one lessee's cars to another shipper was unusual, but the free advertising, not offered to smaller shippers, was a really big complaint.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Billboard Reefers

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson

What prompted the ICC ruling was the extensive practice by car leasing
companies like North American, Northwestern Refrigerator Line, Union
Refrigerator Transit, etc. of leasing reefers to small shippers and
plastering the shippers' advertising all over them, which then in
effect rendered the cars unacceptable for loading by any other shipper.
The railroads complained that this amounted to providing shippers with
a sizable benefit for which they were not charged, as well as making
the cars unavailable when the railroads had traffic (back-hauls, for
example) that otherwise could have been loaded in them.
----- Original Message -----

Maybe it's the same thing stated another way, but my impression was that it was the small shippers who complained about using cars with their competitor's logos all over them, and argued to the ICC that the free advertising provided by the logos was tantamount to an illegal rebate for the large shippers.

KL


Re: Billboard Reefers

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
So there you have it. I suppose one should preface one's question with "What is the answer today?" since it seems likely to change tomorrow.
Read Richard Hendrickson's clear summary. My 2002 comments about 1946 and thereafter were based on a misunderstanding of the rule. It is clear that "advertisement" was applied in a very specific sense.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Pennsy, Arrogance . . .

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 3/25/2007 4:24:40 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
thompson@signaturepress.com writes:

Tell us again, Greg, which railroad it was which styled itself
the "Standard Railroad of the World."



While the PRR did call itself the "Standard Railroad of the World" this is
an implied misconception of the origin of the moniker. The "Standard" did
refer to a standard for other RR's to follow but referenced the standardization
of various parts used mainly in locomotives, and infrastructure and to a
lessor extent freight cars. The use of the same mechanical parts on multiple
classes of locomotives -- K4 and L1, H8, 9 and 10 as examples, resulting in
less variety of inventory at repair facilities. The use of the same parts in
30,000+ X29 boxcars, 40,000+ H21 and H25 hoppers, another 30,000+ GLA, GLC and
GLCa hoppers using interchangeable parts. Standardization of stations with
the exception of major urban areas etc. This is not to say that other roads
did not standardize to certain levels. Just that the PRR took the moniker and
used it as a marketing tool. The fact that it was perceived to mean
something other than its original intent is testament to the effective use of the
term as a marketing ploy.

Rich Orr



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


Re: Billboard Reefers

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 24, 2007, at 9:49 PM, Jim Betz wrote:

Your post to Malcolm on this topic has me confused. I thought that the
ban on 'advertising on freight cars' was only related to those
markings
that were for products other than those products 'made' by the company
who owned the car. Ie. a reefer that was owned by Rath could have any
thing Rath wanted on the side ... but if the car was owned by some
other
company then it could not. Isn't that actually what the ruling was?
However - most of the billboard reefers were affected by the change
and - per Al Westerfield (in a post here on this list?) the majority
of
the billboard reefers were gone in '37 and they 'all' were gone in
'38.

I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it?
How about the court case name and venue?
Jim, as Tony Thompson has already posted, the ruling was made by the
Interstate Commerce Commission. The ICC ruling took effect early in
1934, after which billboard advertising could not be applied to new or
repainted cars. Such advertising had to be removed from cars already
in service by 1938, so Al Westerfield is correct that most billboard
cars were gone ca. 1937 and all were gone by 1938.

What prompted the ICC ruling was the extensive practice by car leasing
companies like North American, Northwestern Refrigerator Line, Union
Refrigerator Transit, etc. of leasing reefers to small shippers and
plastering the shippers' advertising all over them, which then in
effect rendered the cars unacceptable for loading by any other shipper.
The railroads complained that this amounted to providing shippers with
a sizable benefit for which they were not charged, as well as making
the cars unavailable when the railroads had traffic (back-hauls, for
example) that otherwise could have been loaded in them.

From the outset the ICC ruling permitted cars owned by, or on long-term
lease to, a shipper to have the shipper's logo on them IF they were in
assigned service and were never used to carry products made by anyone
else. There were a few examples of this in the late '30s and '40s, and
more examples (especially on RSMs used by meat packers) in the 1950s.
Specific products could not be advertised, however, unless the cars
were used exclusively for those products, or for the raw materials used
to make the products, a situation that was relatively rare though there
were a few examples of it in the 1950s.

None of this is mysterious except to those who seem bent on being
contentious without examining the documentation.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: SLRX and SRLX reporting marks

Barry Roth
 

It was part of Paul Larson's excellent "dollar car" scratchbuilding series of articles, the closest thing I ever had to a personal lesson in building from scratch and the opening of a wonderful world to me. I'm pretty sure that Paul himself was wised up about the "dyslexic" (Champ?) decal and mentioned it in the article.

Barry Roth

pullmanboss <tgmadden@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Peter Weiglin wrote:

Let me warn about what will seem obvious to some.

SLRX was St. Louis Refrigerator (Xpress)
SRLX was Swift Refrigerator Line (Xpress)

The two can be confused; I have a dim memory of some decals that
were made incorrectly years ago and applied by an unsuspecting
modeler who is now much older, if not wiser.
Paul Larson, October 1953 MODEL RAILROADER, "Building an HO Swift
Reefer" is the one I remember. Unfortunately, Paul is not now much
older, having passed away in 1973.

No, I don't have total recall. In August 2005 someone on this list
asked about that article and I scanned a page of it for him. Came
across the image just two days ago.


.





---------------------------------
8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
with theYahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.


Re: SLRX and SRLX reporting marks

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Peter Weiglin wrote:

Let me warn about what will seem obvious to some.

SLRX was St. Louis Refrigerator (Xpress)
SRLX was Swift Refrigerator Line (Xpress)

The two can be confused; I have a dim memory of some decals that
were made incorrectly years ago and applied by an unsuspecting
modeler who is now much older, if not wiser.
Paul Larson, October 1953 MODEL RAILROADER, "Building an HO Swift
Reefer" is the one I remember. Unfortunately, Paul is not now much
older, having passed away in 1973.

No, I don't have total recall. In August 2005 someone on this list
asked about that article and I scanned a page of it for him. Came
across the image just two days ago.

Tom Madden


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

Greg Martin
 

Richard, Tony and all,

The point that seems to be overlooked here is that in the logical
chronological order the PRR X29, X31/X32/X33, X37/X38 were cars produced with
advancements ahead of the industry at any given time. Most of these cars were built,
upgraded and then often rebuilt into cars similar to ARR cars designs (sans
the underframe changes, until the X29D came along) after the war.

I never said that the PRR designs were better in terms of structural sense,
that is subjective. One only needs to ask a few questions, like did they
perform their intended duty, did they last a "normal" lifetime of service, was
the design diverse and serve the shipper. All underframes were built to last a
given period, hauling a given tonnage, regardless of design so how it could be
superior might be more subjective than one would like to admit. All the
above classes met this criteria as did the USRA SS class X26. I am not saying the
ARR underframe was not "the Best" as I personally like it and it makes a lot
of sense and it has become the standard so that is a good reason to believe
that it was better. But regardless, the PRR underframes were upgraded from
one lateral stringer to two that now ran the entire length of the car(unlike
the way that Bowser depicts it with the stringers stopping at the bolster and
the diagonal brace in the corner of the car) so they did see the need for
improvement.

Personally, I just see the rest of the mechanical departments slow in
changing or some may say meticulous in design offering, which I see as an arrogant
position. But it is also and issue of investment, i.e., "we just get underway
with our new car designs and the PRR wants to make the damn car taller, stop
already, if our shippers hear this we are gonna hear it from marketing..."
Their unwillingness to even accept the PRR design show some arrogance, and
let's see I don't recall that all carriers jumped on board with the 32 car
design, until it evolved into a taller car. By then the PRR was off to a taller
car.

I do believe that there might be some perception that we PRR guys are
arrogant (modelers as well as the RR's management), but if you sit in our chairs we
see it as being defensive, not arrogant. I also believe that it comes with
the territory, that during the era we discuss here that the PRR was the biggest
carrier, perhaps not the best in some folks opinion, but I don't recall many
modelers taking this position except perhaps me 3^). Certainly when you
get as big as the PRR, there are so many mistakes made in all areas, marketing,
operations, mechanical, infrastructure and finance that not even they could
see that they were headed for their own train wreck. But many of their steam
era freight cars were still alive and well, let's just leave it at alive. 3^)

The my dog is better that your dog doesn't work with me. I just see it as a
timeline of development. And the PRR just appears to be ahead of the others.





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


Re: Billboard Reefers

Tim O'Connor
 

Jim, here is what Tony Thompson posted on 6/6/2002 --

Guy Wilber wrote
In 1936, the AAR's Arbitration Committee added a new paragraph (6) to
section (r) of Interchange Rule No. 3 to read as follows: Refrigerator
cars bearing advertisements of any shipper, consignee or product will
not be accepted, effective January 1, 1937. In Interchange.
Thanks for adding this item, Guy. I was not aware of the specifics of
the AAR regulation. The ICC case on which this was based, Docket No. 3887,
was decided on July 2, 1934, and was concerned with many abuses by shippers
using leased refrigerator cars, of which advertising furnished free by
lessors was a very minor part.
The AAR rule was certainly not in force as early as the spring of 1946;
there is an Al Rose color photo of the spectacular Chateau Martin purple
wine car scheme, which is "ultimate billboard" in size, dated at that time.
So there you have it. I suppose one should preface one's question with
"What is the answer today?" since it seems likely to change tomorrow.

Tim O'Connor


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Betz wrote:
I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it?
How about the court case name and venue?
Jim (and Tim), it was an ICC ruling. Not AAR and not a court.
Richard and I have both retrieved all the details from ICC documents,
and he has laid it out clearly in the text of the billboard reefer book
he wrote with Ed Kaminski. It's in our pipeline to publish.

Tony Thompson


Re: Heinz Vinegar Cars.

Allen Cain <allencain@...>
 

Overland did a nice brass model and they pop up on Ebay periodically but
expect to pay around $150 when you see one.



Sunshine models also did one that I expect would be excellent but I have not
seen one other than pictures. Expect to make a significant investment of
around $50 which is much less than the brass models but there are skills
required to build these wonderful kits.



AHM has a plastic model of these cars which obviously will be the lowest
price option.



I will leave it to the more knowledgeable on the list to offer input as to
which model is the most accurate for I do not know.



Good luck in the search!



Allen Cain


SLRX and SRLX reporting marks

Peter Weiglin
 

Let me warn about what will seem obvious to some.

SLRX was St. Louis Refrigerator (Xpress)
SRLX was Swift Refrigerator Line (Xpress)

The two can be confused; I have a dim memory of some decals that were made incorrectly years ago and applied by an unsuspecting modeler who is now much older, if not wiser.

Peter Weiglin
Amelia, OH


Heinz Vinegar Cars.

bdg1210 <Bruce_Griffin@...>
 

Group,

While watching a B&O video of movements in Ohio in the late 1950's I
saw a Heinz vinegar car on a train. The car was moving west from
Willard yard. It looked like something from the 1920's with its
multi-banded horizontal tanks on a flat car frame. Is there a model
for such a car? Was this an amonoly in the 1950's?

Bruce D. Griffin
Summerfield, NC


Re: Santa Fe mechanical dept mistakes

Eric
 

Gee Bill, that was heinous. I think you should send everyone on the list two cartons of the
Branchline product of their choice for reparations.

Eric Petersson


Mike Brock writes:

"As far as Santa Fe's design mistakes in the 30's, 40's and 50's goes...I'm
thinking about them. And thinking...and thinking......Gimmeee time..."

Well, they left the belpaire fire boxes off for one....

Bill Schneider (ducking for cover)

________________________________________________
Get your own "800" number
Voicemail, fax, email, and a lot more
http://www.ureach.com/reg/tag


Re: SLRX Car Lading

Jim Williams <wwww5960@...>
 

Hi all.....Beware of the"purple" decals in the Sunshine kit. The stripe ran on me when I used a decal set. I now have a heavily weathered reefer....best Jim Williams

Brian Leppert <b.leppert@att.net> wrote: Richard Hendrickson wrote:

so in the '40s and '50s
they went to white sides and, in the 1950s, small winged-oval SLRX
heralds above the reporting marks.
I have a Sunshine kit for one of these cars, and my focus is 1949, and had
thought I could use the small herald, so just checked the kit's "Prototype
Data Sheet".

It says the 36" wide herald came about in the late 1930s, and was increased
to 5 1/2 feet wide in late 1947. Also, a maroon stripe was added near the
bottom of the sides at that time. Included in the data sheet are photos of
SLRX 3180 with small herald, May 1947, and SLRX 6008 and 3359, both with
large heralds, Sept. 1948.

I guess the small herald is OK for 1949, if I ever build that kit...

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV






---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.


Re: question about truss rods and brake wheel staffs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
. . . it has been observed on this list and elsewhere that evidently the rule was no longer enforced after 1946, at least as far as privately leased cars were concerned. It was Tony Thompson who furnished this information to this list, in 2002.
I am indeed the one who said "evidently," though that was before I had read and understood the details of the ICC ruling. Hopefully Tim understands "evidently."

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Billboard Reefers

Tony Thompson
 

Jim Betz wrote:
I do not have the date of the actual court ruling. Any one know it?
How about the court case name and venue?
Jim (and Tim), it was an ICC ruling. Not AAR and not a court. Richard and I have both retrieved all the details from ICC documents, and he has laid it out clearly in the text of the billboard reefer book he wrote with Ed Kaminski. It's in our pipeline to publish.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: question about truss rods and brake wheel staffs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Read the post Tony. "Black Hawk" is the name of a PRODUCT brand
name, not the name of a company. Why can't you just agree that
advertising PRODUCTS on freight cars was completely legal in the
1950's? I can recite more examples if you like.
Best read it yet again, Tim. This time note the word "Ham." "Black Hawk" is a brand name. If you can't distinguish that from a product, I give up trying to crack your stubbornness.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

120821 - 120840 of 182120