Date   

Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

leakinmywaders
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, " Westerfield" <westerfield@...> wrote:

Actually, I find White's work sterile. He mines the literature but
little else. It's like reading a condensation of Railway Age. - Al
Westerfield
Yup...so "REAL HISTORY" is more than just trolling up a few facts and
lining them up in chronological order. It involves some kind of
synthesis or inference that puts facts in a bigger perspective, and
offers up heuristic value that helps us find and assemble further
facts into a coherent picture. Hence, Jack and Dennis are right to
distinguish their speculation from fact, but ought to feel no need to
apologize for it, as it is what they are bringing to the process that
turns mere facts into knowledge.

I may be taking this near out of bounds, but this is the first RR list
I've been on where epistemology has actually come up for discussion.
Like we'd ever see this on the Diesels List ;-)

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT


Re: M&W Ball LIne boxcar

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>
 

Pieter Roos wrote:

Rather than buying the HO Lifelike car, Bud could find a drawing:

The Mather boxcar: draft horse of American boxcars
Railroad Model Craftsman, February 1991 page 85

As cited in the Kalmbach index. I have not dug out the issue to see
which version of the car is shown, but I suspect the drawing plus some
photos could be interpolated into the required version.

The plan in RMC is the tall version of the 40-ft Mather boxcar.

Bob Witt


Re: Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars

Rob Kirkham <rdkirkham@...>
 

Thanks Paul and Rich for your useful comments on the Sunshine Seaboard '32 model and the F&C X35 model.

I looked at the X35 drawing and see it has the more conventional 30' 8 1/2" truck centres as well. The question this brings to mind is whether the side sill tabs at the bolsters on either model will look out of place if one models correct truck spacing? I assume on the prototype the tabs would be a little different on cars with the longer spacing than on the more conventional design, although confess I have trouble seeing it in photos? Is it true? I suspect that at 3" variance at each end, it is too subtle to notice in most cases (not that I am inviting a debate on what degree of error is too subtle to notice).

If I was to go the kitbash route and not order the Sunshine kit, the flat kit nature of the F&C X35 kit appeals to me for modelling purposes. Borrowing the sides from the X35 and mating them to the X28 seems to have some potential. I think the F&C X28 roof is correct for the model? I wonder if the X28 ends beneath the roof lip are appreciably different in height than the X35 sides? Does anyone have an X35 they could measure? I have an X28 waiting for correct side panels on the bench that I can measure for comparison's sake.

Rob Kirkham

----- Original Message -----
From: <SUVCWORR@aol.com>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars



F&C still makes the PRR X35 which is the lone 1932 ARA boxcar in the Pennsy's fleet.? It has an IH of 9'4" so it may be a better starting point for your project.



Rich Orr


-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Kirkham <rdkirkham@shaw.ca>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:24 am
Subject: [STMFC] Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars




Since my e-mail last week attempting to identify some freight cars in a 1945
photo of Vancouver, I've been attempting to match appropriate models. The
Seaboard 1932 design cars were apparently once offered by F&C and by
Sunshine, but my reading of the various lists available indicates that both
are no longer in production. So I started thinking about a kitbash.

After considering what might be done with a red caboose PRR X29, I struck me
that the car bore some resemblance to the X28 cars after the half door was
removed. Then I remembered that the F&C X28 model lacks the quirky retro
fit side panels, and thought it might be a good starting point? Both the
Seaboard car and the F&C model are ten panel sides (or is that 5/5?).
According to Ted Culotta's excellent The American Railway Association
Standard Box Car of 1932 book, the Seaboard cars were 9'4" inside height.
The one X28b drawing I've looked at puts the interior height at 9' 3 1/4. I
have not been able to do a match of the dimensions for the car ends. And of
course the extra rivets on the F&C PRR model would have to be removed.

I'm thinking if one were to add sill tabs and a new floor/underframe, it
might come very close indeed. But since I've only a passing knowledge of
both cars, I thought I'd ask for input here first.

Comments appreciated.




Yahoo! Groups Links





________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com






Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.2/985 - Release Date: 9/2/2007 4:32 PM


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Mike Fortney
 

Godwin's Law. ;o)

Mike Fortney

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Thomas Baker" <bakert@...> wrote:
<snip> Perhaps one can only say so much about Hitler or Jane Austen
<snip>


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Actually, I find White's work sterile. He mines the literature but little else. It's like reading a condensation of Railway Age. - Al Westerfield


Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars

Rob Kirkham <rdkirkham@...>
 

Oops, sorry about that. While my last message may read as response to Robert D. Heninger's e-mail, it actually was supposed to be an off line response to another e-mail I received from someone else. Not sure how I messed that up - but sorry for any misunderstanding and wasting band width.

Rob Kirkham


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Thomas Baker
 

Some members of this group may be too young to know that at one time--when I began my college years back in 1959, for example--very few in the academic world wrote very much about railroads. Oh, yes, one could find dissertations on the economic aspects of railroads, on some of the better-known financial dealings of a Jay Gould perhaps, but very little on reliable and readable corporate history, such as one finds from Indiana University Press, Northern Illinois University Press, the University of Minnesota Press, and many more that I know little of.

Serious academics did not write about railroads and certainly not about freight car history or construction. If they did, their achievements must have been accomplished in the most obscure of circumstances or remained in dissertation form never to see a wider public. The matter appears to be quite different today. Whether the authors of the PFE book are academics I can't say, but their work--in my view--qualifies. Perhaps one can only say so much about Hitler or Jane Austen and in the search for topics, something interesting and relevant such as railroads in all their varied manifestations acquired respectability.

Tom Baker
Eau Calire, Michigan


Re: Mather & GLCX 25

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Sep 3, 2007, at 6:12 AM, Russ Strodtz wrote:

Richard,Thank you. That also answered another question. At the
same general time there are a few GN 55M series cars
moving to Chicago Ridge. So, in theory, the MSCX could
just be a filler for the other lease to replace cars
being shopped or destroyed. In 1960 there were only
nine cars with the four digit numbers.
Not just theory. Mather did, in fact, provide MSCX cars as needed to
supplement leased cars which operated under the leasing RR's reporting
marks. I have a photo of an MSCX car stenciled to be returned to the
Northern Pacific, obviously on short-term lease to supplement the
Mather cars with NP reporting marks.

I'm very familiar with the 50' double decks as they
were used to replace the hordes of CB&Q 36' cars in hog
service. Thought they had innovative top door track:
Just a steel rod with metal rings attached to the door.
With four doors on each side they were constantly
slapping in or out. I presume these were all cuts and
splices from shorter cars, or were any built as 50'
cars?
All of the 50' Mather stock cars were rebuilt by cutting and splicing
40' Mather stock cars, as you inferred.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: What is a "granger railroad"?

Stokes John
 

Eric,

My understanding of the term as it is used in reference to railroads, is that it refers to the Mid West farming belt states, including Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and Wisconsin and the railroads that operated there. I may have left one or two states out. Morning Sun has a book called "Trackside Around Granger Country" that chronicles the railroads in that area.

You are correct, granger comes from grange, which is a very old word meaning grain and ultimately, farm. See Wikipedia for interesting information. There is also a national organization of farmers and others who belong to the Grange, and organization from the 19th Century that fought against the railroad and banking monopolies and also were involved in abolition and women's suffrage. They were very strong in the midwest bread basket, and still are to some extent. They were also in the Northeast, in fact there is a neat photo of a Granger Hall in Maine on the Wiki site, would make a great model.

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA


To: STMFC@yahoogroups.comFrom: newyorkcentralfan@ureach.comDate: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 18:25:02 +0000Subject: [STMFC] Re: What is a "granger railroad"?




In regards to the granger donnybrook, could a railroad's being considered a granger be determined by having a large percentage of it's income earned by grain haulage be the way of determining as to wether they were a granger road or not?Eric Petersson


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

eric petersson wrote:
It's been my experience that when a professor refers to a colleague as a "popular" historian, it's a euphemism for 'a historian whose work is more well regarded than mine and I'm more than a little put out by that.'
Maybe; I'd say it usually means "someone who's less rigorous and serious than me, but whose books sell at an annoyingly high rate." Sometimes it means "someone who publishes a lot more than me and who MUST be cutting some corners somewhere."

There's a reason that a PhD is refered to piling it high and deep.
Get a grip, Eric. This remark is usually made by those who kinda wish THEY had one.

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: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Eric
 

I'm associated with a military affairs symposium and come in contact
with a great many academics. It's been my experience that when a
professor refers to a colleague as a "popular" historian, it's a
euphemism for 'a historian whose work is more well regarded than mine
and I'm more than a little put out by that.'

There's a reason that a PhD is refered to piling it high and deep.


Eric Petersson



Marty McGuirk wrote:

I am taking a class called Study and Writing of History as part of
the required coursework for a History MA/PhD program. While
discussing research and appropriate sources the professor made an
interesting statement about what can be considered "real" history -
by that she meant a valid source -- as opposed to a "popular"
historian."




Which led to wonder if all the research we as a group do on freight
cars is real history or not. I don't know that any of us is working
on
a PhD in Freightcarology . . . but I think the methodical approach
some
apply to this research certainly qualifies as "history." The question
is does this type of research stand up to a citation in a scholarly
paper, or is it merely some offshoot of "popular" history.

For my money, a work like Tony's PFE book certainly qualifies -- a
short article with a drawing in a magazine does not. I think the use
of
original sources and citations of same is likely the difference. John
White's books also pass muster.

Would like to use some sources in my research, but not sure where the
line should be drawn.

Would appreciate any thoughts.


Re: C.D.L.X. tank car 1051,additional data

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Sep 4, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Dan Gledhill wrote:

Hello Richard,
Thanks again for the info.that you have provided,I am getting much
closer to finding out how CDLX 1051 looked before WW2.Would the 15
S.T.C.Co. cars leased to Star Refining & Producing Co.have been
painted silver and carry the Star name?
They might have, but in the absence of photographic evidence it's
impossible to tell.

I guess it is possible that the remnants of the name still on the car
was on there before CDLX received these cars.
Certainly possible. However, I am inclined to think that the fragments
of lettering that are still readable were on the car during the period
when it was owned and operated by CDLX.

This car as it exists now has absolutely no paint left on the tank and
just patches on the frameThe car though is generally complete with no
damage,just a lot of surface rust.The trucks ,which are in good shape
have the following cast in lettering.
''PAT.Jan 13,1914'' ''F-502 over one axle and ''6-20 S.T.C.Co.'' C-5
over the next axle.
This identifies the trucks as having been original, made for the
Standard Tank Car Co., and also establishes the date the car was built
as being in late 1920 or early 1921, shortly after the trucks were
delivered. That's a bit earlier than I would have guessed, but we now
know that the cars in the 1001-1052 series were a mixed bag of second
hand cars, their only commonality being their 10,000 gal. nominal
capacity and their ARA III classification, which indicates that they
were all built before 1927, when the ICC-103 designation took effect.

Earlier I had stated that it was stenciled in 1933 for the U.P.,but
after checking again the stencil reads as follows.'' REPKD A.T.6-6-37
U.P.R.R.''
AT was Albina Terminal, the UP's Portland, OR freight yard.

As well I was able to find on the lower sides of the tank the name
Los Angeles and further along about 12 ft. the name California.The
lettering for these names was about six inches high.
I guess this is really not much more to go on but hopefully it will
provide something of a clue ,as to this cars early appearance.
Collectively, the fragmentary evidence you report suggests to me that
this car was leased by CDLX to a Los Angeles area petroleum company
which shipped petroleum products to locations on the west coast, and
that the car was sold in the late 1930s, after the stenciled repack
date, to a logging company (perhaps because of some off-line damage to
the underframe or running gear such that CDLX wrote it off rather than
paying to have it repaired) and thereafter was not operated in
interchange. In any case, it certainly could not have been used in
interchange after 8/53, when AB air brakes were mandated. I have
photos which document California Dispatch Line's 1930s-vintage standard
paint and lettering, but none which suggest who the lessor oil company
might have been. Let me know if you discover any other evidence on the
car that might shed more light on this puzzle.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: What is a "granger railroad"?

Eric
 

In regards to the granger donnybrook, could a railroad's being
considered a granger be determined by having a large percentage of
it's income earned by grain haulage be the way of determining as to
wether they were a granger road or not?

Eric Petersson


Re: Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars

Ed Hawkins
 

On Sep 5, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Don Worthy wrote:

I am, also, interested in these cars. Where do I order them from?? Is
there an email address or mail address that I didn't see?
STMFC,
If anyone is interested in purchasing any Sunshine 1932 ARA box cars, I
have few extras (21.1 MP, 21.6 CRR, and 21.21 WM), plus some other
urethane kits (many of which are out of production). Contact me OFF
LIST at hawk0621@sbcglobal.net and I will furnish you a listing. No
waiting for 6 months!
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars

SUVCWORR@...
 

F&C still makes the PRR X35 which is the lone 1932 ARA boxcar in the Pennsy's fleet.? It has an IH of 9'4" so it may be a better starting point for your project.



Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Rob Kirkham <rdkirkham@shaw.ca>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 12:24 am
Subject: [STMFC] Seaboard 1932 ARA box cars




Since my e-mail last week attempting to identify some freight cars in a 1945
photo of Vancouver, I've been attempting to match appropriate models. The
Seaboard 1932 design cars were apparently once offered by F&C and by
Sunshine, but my reading of the various lists available indicates that both
are no longer in production. So I started thinking about a kitbash.

After considering what might be done with a red caboose PRR X29, I struck me
that the car bore some resemblance to the X28 cars after the half door was
removed. Then I remembered that the F&C X28 model lacks the quirky retro
fit side panels, and thought it might be a good starting point? Both the
Seaboard car and the F&C model are ten panel sides (or is that 5/5?).
According to Ted Culotta's excellent The American Railway Association
Standard Box Car of 1932 book, the Seaboard cars were 9'4" inside height.
The one X28b drawing I've looked at puts the interior height at 9' 3 1/4. I
have not been able to do a match of the dimensions for the car ends. And of
course the extra rivets on the F&C PRR model would have to be removed.

I'm thinking if one were to add sill tabs and a new floor/underframe, it
might come very close indeed. But since I've only a passing knowledge of
both cars, I thought I'd ask for input here first.

Comments appreciated.




Yahoo! Groups Links





________________________________________________________________________
Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com


Re: Mather C&IM Boxcar

Eugene Deimling <losgatos48@...>
 

I have one color shot of a C&IM car that is orange adjacent to a WP PS-1
built after 1951. I don't know the date for certain but at least one made
it into the 1950s with orange paint The car showed a few patches of yellow
for a recent inspection stencil.



Gene D





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
& Bernice Hillman
Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2007 6:47 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Mather C&IM Boxcar



Awhile back the color of the C&IM cars was discussed as to when/whether
they were yellow or orange.

In the car-side photo, it looks like there is orange paint under the
chipping-off yellow paint. Are there any dates still showing on this
car?

Paul Hillman


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Dennis writes-

Real history will have an unbroken thread of provenance all the way back to the source.
Pretty good definition . I have long felt that a good deal of what so many on this list has done, largely without thinking about it, is to provide good evidence-and-data-based information that can be taken straight to the history bank. Those who decline to do so are rapidly called to account by those who do.

We do not often have this provenance at hand, however, and if we were required to do so, this List would have become intolerably dull years ago. It is simply knowing and acknowledging the difference, and in real time, if someone does not know the difference, others will call him to account.

Jack White's work has been cited as a fine example. Jack was also the first person who very gently publicly chided the authors of so much of body of printed (books, magazines) railroad "history" of the time for their dereliction of the principles that Dennis outlines so well, i.e. complete and often willful ignorance of primary sources .







--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

My previous post was a quick response to the original question. Now, having read the other responses, a feww brief comments.

One ought to be very careful about using railfan publications as authentic history. Much of it is, but there is also much unverified personal recollection. I've seen enough statements in them that I've know to be wrong or misleading to make me very skeptical. I think the problem here is that publications like Trains, MR and RMC are not trying to meet the standards of professional historians. This is particularly true of statements that purport knowledge of the "why" of what happened. You need to ask if that person was really in a position to know.

On the other hand, I would think that model railroad publications, names escape me at the moment, that go into details of cars or equipment are probably more valid sources because thier authors follow a more rigorous process of verifying information. You might also say the same of discussions on this list that lead us closer to knowledge of "real history" than many of us had before the discussions.


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


Re: Is what we're doing REAL history??

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

I hope Mike doesn't take this as too far off topic, but it seems to me worth discussing because it is what we are doing.

Let's begin with the realization that "real" history isn't defined by the formality of the PhD's process, although many academics would like to think so. If history were to be defined by documentation, then much of the past would be lost, i.e., that part of it that is in the heads of those of us who were there and has not yet been put on paper (or CD's).

Some of these heated debates that we have are as much a part of developing valid history as the printed scholarly articles of the past. Every time that I make a statement and someone else corrects it and a third party gives anothe point of view on it and eventually we agree that we're as close to the truth as we can get, that is a contribution to "real" history.



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


M&W and C&IM Mathers

Bud Rindfleisch
 

Losgatos48......
Thanks for the posting of the M&W "Ball Line" 1266 and the C&IM Mather closeups.
Bud Rindfleisch

126761 - 126780 of 192836