Date   

Re: PRR turtleback cars

Benjamin Hom <bhom3@...>
 

Richard Stallworth asked:

"I have been told that PRR x31f(?) class boxcars-the turtlebacks never left
home rails. Is this true?"

No (by the way, X31f is the correct class). Here's another piece of
photographic evidence:

PRR 81417 (Ft. Worth, TX, 6/17/1962, Dick Kuelbs photo, RMJ Mar 95, p 23)

These cars also made their way to several second-hand owners in the 1960s as
well:

T-SE 324 (Craig Bossler photo, RMJ Mar 95, p 16)
AD&N 1805 (Richard Burg collection, RMJ Mar 95, p 23)


Ben Hom


Re: PRR turtleback cars

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

What happened to them after the war? Thank you.
Released to general service: Per a conductors book in my posession, on
3/16/1948, PRR 81840 carried a load of common nails over Sherman Hill on
it's way to Portland Ore.

Dave Nelson


Re: PRR turtleback cars

Bill Schneider <branch@...>
 

I would highly doubt that they were confined to PRR rails after the war
since there's an 1947 photo that includes the end of one of these cars
being switched in Mayfield yard (Scranton) on the O&W in Morning Sun's
O&W book. This was reason enough for me to buy one of the Bowser cars! :>)

Bill Schneider

ThisIsR@aol.com wrote:

Good afternoon:
I have been told that PRR x31f(?) class boxcars-the turtlebacks
never
left home
rails. Is this true? I was told they were designed for hauling jeeps
during
WW2.
What happened to them after the war? Thank you.
Richard Stallworth

Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
[Become a Better Trader!]
<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=140160.1334960.2924124.2/D=egroupmail/S=1700169725:N/A=486845/?http://www.optionetics.com/free_tym.asp>


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


Re: Speaking of private car rosters

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

-----Original Message-----
From: thompson@signaturepress.com [mailto:thompson@signaturepress.com]
Well, remember, Dave, all the OTHER carriers would have to agree, or
convince the ICC to permit it.
Was that the case with the PFE? GATX?

I don't know that it was a FAT payment, but
if so, the ICC would certainly have had an input.
Did the ICC have any regulatory authority over private car lines? Perhaps
the dollar value of the mileage charge, but I thought nothing else (wasn't
it the FRA who regulated safety features of any cars, public or private?).

But I don't think this is something you can reason through. It is
probably largely history, as Garth Groff observed, and I would concur.
Well, yeah, it is safe to say R.R. mgmt was, ahem, less than visionary. I'm
trying to understand if the reasoning in this particular issue was
financial, legal, or intellectual, especially by the 50's as more and more
specialized cars came into service and car pools can into use. Sounds like
both you and Garth lean towards the later - correct?

Dave Nelson


Re: Speaking of private car rosters

thompson@...
 

But wouldn't that fat mileage payment create an opportunity for the
regulated carrier to: a) avoid a capital investment on its books and the
attendant approval process and b) provide the shareholders equal to or
greater return (the greater return comes from non owning roads paying that
mileage fee)? Or were the milage fees and per diem payments roughly
equivalent?
Well, remember, Dave, all the OTHER carriers would have to agree, or
convince the ICC to permit it. I don't know that it was a FAT payment, but
if so, the ICC would certainly have had an input.
But I don't think this is something you can reason through. It is
probably largely history, as Garth Groff observed, and I would concur.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history


Re: When the X's were added

Larry King <ab8180@...>
 

2-28-01

In 1911,MDT had a series of 40' reefers with MDTX initials; I think the
number series was MDTX 30000 and up. From a picture in a 1911 Equip.
Register the car looked to be the same design as in the 1919
Cyc(40'lgh.,Bettendorf u'frame,8- hinge doors 5' wide etc).In 1913 all MDT
cars were transferred to NYC&HR and LS&MS reporting marks. When they went
back to using the MDT marks in about 1924,the X was no longer used.

LR King


PRR turtleback cars

ThisIsR@...
 

Good afternoon:
I have been told that PRR x31f(?) class boxcars-the turtlebacks never
left home
rails. Is this true? I was told they were designed for hauling jeeps during
WW2.
What happened to them after the war? Thank you.
Richard Stallworth


Re: Speaking of private car rosters

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Dave,

I suspect we have economics and accidents of history to explain why tank
cars and reefers (and to a lesser extent stock cars) were privately
owned, but other car types were not.

Most of these cars were (a) specialized, especially when fitted up for a
particular industry or commodity, and (b) fairly low use compared to
general freight cars. IIRC, most railroads were reluctant to invest in
such specialized cars due to the lower dollar return. So much for the
economics. As for history, Armour tried to corner the market on
refrigerators at the turn of the century, and Standard Oil attempted the
same with tank cars. These companies put considerable pressure on the
railroads not to compete, or lose through routing of the monopoly-owned
special cars. This kept railroads out of the game, and allowed other
private players (or railroad-owned consortiums) to move into this niche
when Armour and Standard Oil lost their monopolies.

As for other car types, consider that Trailer Train, Railbox, and
Railgon more or less did/do offer "private" fleets of cars for hire
today. Of course, these ventures are owned by participating railroads,
but the companies are managed independently.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Dave & Libby Nelson wrote:


As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank car
companies, why didn't other car types and commodities get addressed this way
too? Fer instance, 50' boxcars with auto racks (or in later years, the
autorack cars). Or plain jane coal hoppers running between Gary Indiana and
the Pocohontas coal belts? Or any covered hopper? Or depressed flatcar?
Superficially at least, it appears these situations are not far off of
reefers from California -- loaded one way and returned empty.

So why wasn't it done?
-----------------------------------
Dave Nelson

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/


Re: Speaking of private car rosters

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

-----Original Message-----
From: thompson@signaturepress.com [mailto:thompson@signaturepress.com]
Dave Nelson asks:
As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank car
companies, why didn't other car types and commodities get
addressed this way
too?
Dave, I think the specialized nature of tank car and reefer traffic had
inhibited railroads from wanting to own very big fleets, so private owners
tended to do the job, and got the attractive boost of the mileage payments
instead of per diem. But this didn't and doesn't apply to "plain jane coal
hoppers" or most any other car type.
But wouldn't that fat mileage payment create an opportunity for the
regulated carrier to: a) avoid a capital investment on its books and the
attendant approval process and b) provide the shareholders equal to or
greater return (the greater return comes from non owning roads paying that
mileage fee)? Or were the milage fees and per diem payments roughly
equivalent?

Dave Nelson


Re: Speaking of private car rosters

thompson@...
 

Dave Nelson asks:
As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank car
companies, why didn't other car types and commodities get addressed this way
too? Fer instance, 50' boxcars with auto racks (or in later years, the
autorack cars). Or plain jane coal hoppers running between Gary Indiana and
the Pocohontas coal belts? Or any covered hopper? Or depressed flatcar?
Superficially at least, it appears these situations are not far off of
reefers from California -- loaded one way and returned empty.
So why wasn't it done?
Dave, I think the specialized nature of tank car and reefer traffic had
inhibited railroads from wanting to own very big fleets, so private owners
tended to do the job, and got the attractive boost of the mileage payments
instead of per diem. But this didn't and doesn't apply to "plain jane coal
hoppers" or most any other car type.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history


Speaking of private car rosters

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

As it appears it was a smart move to form all of the reefer and tank car
companies, why didn't other car types and commodities get addressed this way
too? Fer instance, 50' boxcars with auto racks (or in later years, the
autorack cars). Or plain jane coal hoppers running between Gary Indiana and
the Pocohontas coal belts? Or any covered hopper? Or depressed flatcar?
Superficially at least, it appears these situations are not far off of
reefers from California -- loaded one way and returned empty.

So why wasn't it done?
-----------------------------------
Dave Nelson


Re: When the X's were added

thompson@...
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
SFRD, IC, NP, BAR, CN & CP reefers were obviously RR owned. ART, PFE,
MDT(& NRC) were apparently considered to be RR owned, as the companies were
direct subsidiaries of WAB/MP, SP/UP and NYC.
Don't know about the others, Richard, but I do know from extensive
references in PFE correspondence on official matters that it was indeed
considered privately owned. Yes, of course, two railroads owned all the
stock, but it was NOT considered a subsidiary, any more than FGE was a
"subsidiary" of PRR, L&N, etc., or REA was a "subsidiary" of its owning
railroads. I'd bet that ART (which dates to the 19th century) is in that
category too. And Fruit Growers was formed in 1920, prior to the "X"
ruling, so it's indeed interesting that they conformed to the rule. Wonder
if they had a choice?

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history


Re: When the X's were added

Richard Hendrickson
 

Byron Rose wrote:

OTOH, Union Refrigerator Transit Line used URTC into the 30s and then
changed to URTX. Could have had something to do with it's purchase by
General American in 1930, but I believe URTC was in use well into the
30s.
Good point, Byron; I'd forgotten about URT's use of URTC in the 1920s. But
the latest example I can find of a car with URTC reporting marks is 1930,
so your conjecture about the change to URTX coinciding with GATC's
acquisition of URT may well be correct. The ORERs are no help; in the
1920s and early 1930s many car owners, including URT, didn't show reporting
marks (though I did turn up one interesting factoid, which is that as late
as 1933 Cudahy showed their reporting marks as CRL, not CRLX).

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Another Intro

golden1014
 

Gentlemen,

I stole this good idea from Richard Stallworth (he's a buddy of mine and a fellow Seaboard modeler). Mike Brock invited me to the list and I'm happy to be here, and am excited to learn as much as I can from you experts. I recognize a lot of names from other lists and from books and magazines, and I'm excited to get to know you guys a little bit.

Most of my railroad and modeling interests focus on the old Seaboard and Atlantic Coast Line RRs, but I enjoy learning things about almost all other railroads...even the Southern Pacific (Grin!). I model the SAL, ca. 1950, and am planning a small layout for my home here in Northern California. If you're interested, you can check out my interests at my PhotoPoint site (see the "tag" below).

Thanks for the invite!

Yours,

Johnny Golden



Checked out our PhotoPoint web site yet? Over 750 railroad pictures, documents, models and more have been uploaded since November. Just click here: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=1187026&;Auth=false.



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Personal Address - Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.


Re: (many things to save "cyber-postage")

Richard Hendrickson
 

Richard - Check the glossary section for some freight car terms at:
http://www.union.rpi.edu/railroad/images/Glossary/Glossary-A.html
and what you don't see there, let me know and I will try and post it, or
look it up.
I'll try to find time to do this, but it won't happen in the next week or two.

Did URTX ever get Dreadnaught ended wood cars?
No, but see below.

....Did they rebuild older all wood cars?
Many URTX wood reefers were rebuilt beginning in the mid-1950s with 4-4
Dreadnaught ends and steel roofs, but they were much taller than the T-M
models, among other things.

When was their first all steel cars. (I think 1937....
June, 1936, built by General American (who owned URT) with Pennsy style
flat riveted steel roof and ends and four-hinge doors that had latch bars
on each door half.

And is there any prototype for the T-M steel reefer?
Sure there is. And the moon is made of green cheese. The entire model is
fictional, especially those absurd 2-2-2 (!) Dreadnaught ends. It was
designed (as you correctly observe) to fit the same mold base as the other
T-M house cars and to use as many existing parts as possible, so it's a
mish-mash of components most of which weren't prototypically accurate for
anything to begin with. In my kitbashing days, I puzzled for a long time
over what, if anything, the steel reefer kit could be reworked into that
would at least vaguely resemble a real freight car and never came up with
an acceptable answer.


Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: When the X's were added

Richard Hendrickson
 

Richard,
FGEX was a subsidiary of the L&N, ACL, and some other
southeastern roads I believe.
Actually, a separate corporation in which many railroads owned stock: PRR,
B&O, ACL, L&N, and Southern were among the major RRs that participated.

Unlike PFE, SFRD, ART, and MDT, all of which (as Tony T. has pointed out)
existed prior to 1910, Fruit Growers wasn't founded until 1922, so the "X"
ruling applied to it.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: When the X's were added

byronrose@...
 

OTOH, Union Refrigerator Transit Line used URTC into the 30s and then
changed to URTX. Could have had something to do with it's purchase by
General American in 1930, but I believe URTC was in use well into the
30s.

BSR

On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 17:47:59 -0800 Richard Hendrickson
<rhendrickson@opendoor.com> writes:
Were PFE and MDT considered railroad-owned? Or was it just this
wasn't
enforced? (PFE, MDT, and probably a few others that I can't recall
off-hand, were listed in the back of the ORER's in the private
owner
section.)
SFRD, IC, NP, BAR, CN & CP reefers were obviously RR owned. ART,
PFE,
MDT(& NRC) were apparently considered to be RR owned, as the
companies were
direct subsidiaries of WAB/MP, SP/UP and NYC. But some MDT-owned
cars used
"X" reporting marks: MERX (Merchants Rfr. Line) and ERDX (Eastern
Refrigerator Despatch). On the other hand, New York Despatch Line,
though
wholly owned by Grand Trunk Western, used NYDX reporting marks until
WW II,
when the cars were finally re-lettered GTW. It may be that only a
railroad
lawyer could explain ARA/AAR policy about this - and then you
wouldn't know
whether to believe what he/she told you.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


Re: When the X's were added

ibs4421@...
 

Richard,
FGEX was a subsidiary of the L&N, ACL, and some other southeastern roads I believe.

Warren

SFRD, IC, NP, BAR, CN & CP reefers were obviously RR owned. ART, PFE,
MDT(& NRC) were apparently considered to be RR owned, as the companies were
direct subsidiaries of WAB/MP, SP/UP and NYC. But some MDT-owned cars used
"X" reporting marks: MERX (Merchants Rfr. Line) and ERDX (Eastern
Refrigerator Despatch). On the other hand, New York Despatch Line, though
wholly owned by Grand Trunk Western, used NYDX reporting marks until WW II,
when the cars were finally re-lettered GTW. It may be that only a railroad
lawyer could explain ARA/AAR policy about this - and then you wouldn't know
whether to believe what he/she told you.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


Re: When the X's were added

Richard Hendrickson
 

Were PFE and MDT considered railroad-owned? Or was it just this wasn't
enforced? (PFE, MDT, and probably a few others that I can't recall
off-hand, were listed in the back of the ORER's in the private owner
section.)
SFRD, IC, NP, BAR, CN & CP reefers were obviously RR owned. ART, PFE,
MDT(& NRC) were apparently considered to be RR owned, as the companies were
direct subsidiaries of WAB/MP, SP/UP and NYC. But some MDT-owned cars used
"X" reporting marks: MERX (Merchants Rfr. Line) and ERDX (Eastern
Refrigerator Despatch). On the other hand, New York Despatch Line, though
wholly owned by Grand Trunk Western, used NYDX reporting marks until WW II,
when the cars were finally re-lettered GTW. It may be that only a railroad
lawyer could explain ARA/AAR policy about this - and then you wouldn't know
whether to believe what he/she told you.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: When the X's were added

thompson@...
 

John Nehrich asks:
Were PFE and MDT considered railroad-owned? Or was it just this wasn't
enforced? (PFE, MDT, and probably a few others that I can't recall
off-hand, were listed in the back of the ORER's in the private owner
section.)
John, read the message again. PFE and MDT (along with SFRD) already
existed, with non-"X" marks, when this rule went into effect.
PFE at least was definitely considered privately owned; as such, they
were not subject to USRA jurisdiction during that period. I believe that is
true of SFRD also.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2942 Linden Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 http://www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroads and on Western history

181761 - 181780 of 182515