Date   

Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@mchsi.com>

In all likelihood, it wasn't the SP's choice; it was the lumber
brokers that chose that curculios routing, because they COULD, and it
gave them more time to sell the road.
I agree with everything you said Dennis, but you're missing a very
important point. Handing traffic over to the Rio Grande would more
often than not EXPEDITE the shipment to its destination. The UP
has long had the reputation of being the slow road compared to its
competitors to the south...

Tim O'


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.

Tim O'Connor
 

My point exactly. If you miss the nail, then you're not hitting it.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Norman+Laraine Larkin" <lono@comcast.net>
There are many fingers out there that have witnessed where else. 8>)
Norm Larkin


----- Original Message -----
From: timboconnor@comcast.net
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.


Where else would you hit a nail?

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Norman+Laraine Larkin" <lono@comcast.net>
> Sounds like you hit the nail on the head, Jim.
> Regards,
> Norm Larkin


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@brevard.net>

"SP was essential to the Overland Route in your era -- it was basically
a joint operation. And to help you out, the connections at Omaha
were 7 -- C&NW/CMStP&O, MILW, CRI&P, CB&Q, CGW, WABASH, and IC."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You missed Mopac. I like the Mopac lettering. And Mopac hoppers found their
way to Laramie [ oh...noooo ].
True, but I didn't include MP since I don't think it was much of an interchange
partner in that area -- it went south to KC, and so did the UP via the Kansas
Pacific. Wabash got very little traffic as well but UP may have been kinder to
them since they were a beneficial passenger train partner. I dunno. I think
C&NW always got the lion's share.

No. OTOH, I'm not seeing blocked eastbound cars in trains in Wyoming.
SP blocked cars for Chicago and other eastern points in Roseville. These
may show up as smaller blocks on the UP. Or maybe UP just shuffled them
around in Ogden for grins.

You ever think that Fraley may have just saved stuff he thought was NOT
typical? Like a big block of SP box cars? :-)

I'm going to analyze my 1956 data and we'll see what that shows. Fortunately
for other members on the group, it will probably take me 5 yrs to do it.
I'm suspect many here are relieved to hear it.

Tim O'


Re: DTI trucks

SUVCWORR@...
 

Brian,

I added a photo of the PRR 2D-F10/2E-F10 truck under a H30 cv'd hopper to
the folder "trucks" in the photo section. It is waiting approval.

Rich Orr



**************It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your travel
deal here.
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypothesis.

Cyril Durrenberger
 

All,

One of the main problems with all of this data analysis is that you are trying to take a very small sample size (really insignificant) and extrapolate to the whole fleet. This also assumes that the any sample you analyze is representative of the whole, which is not very likely.

As has been pointed out such an approach is also limited by the year (the rosters will change with time), season and location.

Also as pointed out in this post, most modelers do not have a large fleet of cars (how long would it take to build 500 detailed resin cars?)

So this is what I think would be a reasonable approach for the analysis: (remark I am a research scientist at The University of Texas at Austin)

1. Use data that is likely to reflect trains that would be hauling a representative sample. This would have to be through freights, not local freights.

2. Then compare train data set to roster data set for that year in a very easy to follow format (I suggest an excel spread sheet). This would be done for each train data set. Post the results in a data base for the group.

3. The groupings of small railroads would be necessary to simplify the process.

4. Then ask the question - does the train data compared to the roster data support that the cars are distributed according to the size of the national roster information.

5. It would be important to do this for box cars, gondolas and flat cars in separate groupings. One could do this for hopper cars and stock cars, but they are likely to be impacted more by location, but this would become evident in such an analysis..

If Tim has already done this, then present the data in such a format. What I have seen does not do this. Please do not tell us that is what it shows, show us the data then each person can determine if this applicable to their situation and then they can decide how to use the information.

6. Also include the time of year and the location for the train data set as there may be seasonal and regional impacts that one may wish to consider.

7. Then the user can apply their knowledge of differences in traffic patterns, etc for their own railroad on a case by case basis. It is not likely that the same approach will work for all model railroads.

8. Forget the statistical analysis - the train data sets are far too small to reasonably apply them. If you want to do a statistical analysis, you would need to apply some sort of boot strap process to resample the data.

Once the data is presented anyone can then take that and apply it as they see fit for their model railroad.

I will tell you how I have gone about it for my model railroad of the Houston East & West Texas circa 1910.

1. Use the data from the railroad commission reports on commodities shipped on the railroad to determine the split of cars by type - box car, refrigerator car, flat car, gondola car, stock car, etc. Other data in the reports tells the train lengths and split between loads and empties.

2. I would obtain the ICC Blue Book data for 1910 to determine the ratio of home road cars to other cars. In my case for the HE&WT these data would likely to be applicable only to box cars, Knowing that based on other information most flat car and gondola loads were generated locally with home road (SP lines) cars. Other more robust data sources discussed below are used for tank cars, stock cars and refrigerator cars.

3. If we can show that in 1910 the non home box cars are distributed by national roster data, use this to determine the number of box cars for each railroad.

4. Realize that in 1910 (it is not necessarily the same for later years), most tank car and refrigerator cars used on the HE&WT were owned by private owners, so that would mean another type of analysis.. Use the railroad commission reports of mileage for private owner cars (since there was significant variation from year to year, average over a span of 3 years - 1909, 1910 and 1911) to determine companies likely to show up on the HE&WT. This number of cars for each company on the model railroad would then be coupled with the industries served on the model railroad, the availability of information on the company's cars (not as much of a problem for the 1950's), availability of suitable decals to letter the cars and the availability of kits (or the willingness to scratch build or kit bash the cars needed) to determine the tank car and refrigerator car fleets for the model railroad.. The data for the private owner cars during this time period was no where near the split
based on number of cars nationally, with some large fleets of cars never showing up at all. A case in point would be the Union Tank Line - very small percentage, but there was a large representation from Merchants and Planters Oil Company and Higgins Oil & Fuel Company, both with rather small fleets of cars. The same sort of thing happened with refrigerator cars. PFE was not well represented as they had recently started operations. Armour owned companies had the largest representation. Santa Fe cars did not have much mileage on the HE&WT. Another problem is that refrigerator cars from the Houston Packing Company had a good deal of mileage, but I can not locate any information on what they lookied like or how they were lettered. The same thing happens with many of the tank cars, many of which were not listed in the ORER.


5. Flat cars and gondolas would be mainly SP lines cars.

6. Stock cars would be a mix of SP lines cars, private owner cars (much of the live stock was shipped on private owner cars in 1910) and other cars. However, there was not much live stock shipped on the HE&WT.

I have done all of the above except for the following exceptions:. I have not had the ICC Blue Book data (I just found out about it) nor have I done the percentage of box cars based on the national fleet. I intend to do that if I can locate the Blue Book data for the HE&WT for 1910 and then I will compare the results of this approach to the other one I used earlier. That being - 50% of the cars being local (SP lines in this case), 25% from lines that connected with the HE&WT and the other 25% from the national fleet based roughly on the percentage of their car fleet. The split of model SP Lines box, flat and gondola cars was based on the percentage of each type of car on the roster at that time and the road names. As mentioned earlier, this presents some problems as many of these cars would have to be scratch built.

Cyril Durrenberger


John Stokes <ggstokes@msn.com> wrote:
Tony,

Finally got some response other than the repetition of the studies. No, not meant to be insulting at all, but I think correct for the notion that this "data" applies absolutely. I don't think Tim is saying that the equal distribution accurately depicts the status on every railroad in the country on every day of every month of every year I do not recall his making the claim that was the case, or that every freight train or groups of freight trains on any given railroad would always have the predicted percentages. What I think flies in the face of reality is the notion that this formula works every time and that it directly and specifically applies to modeling situations on most people's layouts.


I believe what some people are saying is that the idea that there was this perfect mathematical distribution of box cars to every railroad in the land in proportion to ownership is hard to see in light of the almost infinite variables that would affect such distribution, and photographic and personal observation evidence to the contrary. Who made this happen, or how did it happen. Some unseen guiding hand? What did Mark Twain say about statistics?


Actually, this all has little direct effect on most modelers, since none of us, except the virtual guys and really large clubs, even begin to approach the traffic potential to allow any one to follow these theories.


And I have looked at the facts, and they are more than statistics based on small samples, and they say that this mathematical precision did not occur in real life. But I would like to hear why that is not correct. Tell those who disbelieve, in a good concise paragraph again, the meat of the theory and the facts that back it up. I am willing to try to learn.


John Stokes
Believe, Wa

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.comFrom: thompson@signaturepress.comDate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:40:08 -0700Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypothesis.

John Stokes wrote:> I agree with Malcolm. The very notion that box cars were distributed > on all railroads across the country in proportion to ownership is > patently absurd on its face.Gosh, John, this sure saves you from doing any data analysis or for that matter, even looking at any data. To call Tim Gilbert's work "lahlah land" is insulting and ignorant. But hey, opinion trumps facts, right?Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.comPublishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car distribution

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, timboconnor@... wrote:


It's all relative Dave. A trickle on the SP would be a flood on the
D&RGW.
By the 1960's SP itself strongly preferred the long way around for
lumber
-- Oregon to St Louis by way of San Antonio and Pine Bluff...
In all likelihood, it wasn't the SP's choice; it was the lumber
brokers that chose that curculios routing, because they COULD, and it
gave them more time to sell the road. Malcolm and John have recently
made some good points about diversions, and the businesses that relied
on them, but so far no one has explicitly stated that while the
perishables shippers and the lumber trade both took advantage of the
ICC's regulations on diversions, they each did it differently.

Perishables are, well, perishable. Each day they stay in the car, they
degrade in quality, and therefore value. Keep them on the road too
long, and they become worthless; no one is going to pay for a carload
of rotten produce. Therefore, produce brokers routed a car by the
fastest route possible to where they thought they could sell it, and
used one diversion to send it to its final destination when they did.

Lumber, and to a great extent potatoes, are not perishable. They
didn't degrade in transit any faster than they did in the warehouse,
so there was no need to hurry. This seems to be the hardest thing for
modelers to grasp; that there was a significant portion of the rail
shippers who DID NOT want fast service. They routed their rollers via
the sloooow route, with many stops and poor connections. It gave them
more time to sell the load, therefore they could start trying to sell
it in the west, and work eastward as the car passed different
diversion points. If the car zigzagged all over the country before
they finally found a buyer in NYC, or Naples FL, they didn't care, so
long as they didn't overplay their hand and have to sell at a discount
because the car reached its destination without a sale and now the
freight bill was due.

Because the brokers wanted the slowest route possible, they were
experts at finding obscure routings that no one in their right mind
would use… unless they wanted to use a boxcar as free warehouse space
for three weeks while they called around to sell its contents. Years
ago Dan Holbrook pointed out to me several C&NW lines that ducked
abandonment for years because they had sufficient traffic, when in
reality that traffic was nothing but "diversion potatoes" or lumber
rollers.

Of course, with the advent of the Staggers Act, all that changed, but
that's years in the future for this list.

Dennis


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.

Norman+Laraine Larkin <lono@...>
 

There are many fingers out there that have witnessed where else. 8>)
Norm Larkin

----- Original Message -----
From: timboconnor@comcast.net
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:21 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.


Where else would you hit a nail?

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Norman+Laraine Larkin" <lono@comcast.net>
> Sounds like you hit the nail on the head, Jim.
> Regards,
> Norm Larkin


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Mike

In another post you said the PNW cutoff handled 12 trains a day. Using
your 35 trains a day average, that amounts to... over 33%.
Just trying to be consistent.

Tim

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@brevard.net>

"Some were headed to the PNW."

Yes, about 15% went on the cutoff through Granger to Pocatello, ID.


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.

Tim O'Connor
 

Where else would you hit a nail?

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Norman+Laraine Larkin" <lono@comcast.net>
Sounds like you hit the nail on the head, Jim.
Regards,
Norm Larkin


Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the rejection of the equal distribution hypothesis.

Tim O'Connor
 

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: John Stokes <ggstokes@msn.com>
The very notion that box cars were distributed on all railroads across the
country in proportion to ownership is patently absurd on its face.
Really? So they were logically apportioned according to an exacting
formula that only yourself and Malcolm understand? Pray tell, let us
know what that could be! We're just dying to know.

All one has to do is look at some photos of rail yards and freight trains
from a good sample of the US and one would instantly recognize the
randomness, ...
Ummm, John, aren't you trying to prove that it's NOT random?

... and sometimes predictable,
But random IS predictable. It's what we've been saying all along.

The reason people get so excited about seeing a BAR red white and blue
box car in Dallas, Texas is because it is a rarity,
Yes, it was a rarity on the CB&Q, and the SAL, and the PRR, and the SP,
and just about everywhere except the BAR. BAR reefers however were not
at all rare on the SP in certain seasons. But that's a topic for another time.
I don't want to confuse you.

The Granger railroads kept a high percentage of their fleets on their home
irons
This of course is patently nonsensical, since the grangers themselves were
perennially complaining that they could not get their cars back from other
railroads. Yes, the single sheathed cars probably did represent a higher
percentage on home rails than their share of the fleet as a whole -- this
reflected the tendency of other railroads to send back old equipment and
hold onto to the new stuff. Think that's a false claim? Just ask yourself why
railroads were so reluctant to buy cars with roller bearings even 20 years
after their safety, cost and performance advantages were well proven. Many
cars in the 1950's with roller bearings were restricted to home road use, to
avoid losing the cars for months or even years at a time.

Out here in the PNW during the BN days
BN, what the heck is that? Mike, have I missed out on an important railroad
that existed prior to 1960?

Tim O'


Re: Modern Data?

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "Kurt Laughlin" Has anyone heard of or tried to see if present-day mixed freights follow the same distributions as presumed for the steam era? There are no doubt differences today, but don't Car Service Rules 1, 2, and 3 still apply? Shouldn't there still be distributions based on ownership?
===================

It has to be very different today with so few railroads, seven of them being very large. Among those seven, the only indirect connection is CP/KCS. I dont' know if CSR's.

Since a much mudh larger proportion of routes has minimal competition, there will be a much larger bias towards loads in cars owned by the origin road. On CSX, I'd expect to see BNSF and UP very over-represented relative to NS. But that effect is mitigated by a large volume of traffi between NS points andCSX points.

But this is out of our era, so I'll stop here.


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


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

It's all relative Dave. A trickle on the SP would be a flood on the D&RGW.
By the 1960's SP itself strongly preferred the long way around for lumber
-- Oregon to St Louis by way of San Antonio and Pine Bluff...

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@att.net>


-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor

The D&RGW got a little bit of SP's traffic, but not much.

Actualy the SP dumped a fair amount of lumber traffic on the D&RGW at Ogden.
I dunno the facts of the case but I suspect it was a lot of "rollers".

Dave Nelson


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

The best threads never do...

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "Peter J. McClosky" <pmcclosky@comcast.net>
Egad,
Will this thread never end?


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.

Norman+Laraine Larkin <lono@...>
 

Sounds like you hit the nail on the head, Jim.
Regards,
Norm Larkin

----- Original Message -----
From: Jim Betz
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:21 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.


Guys,

The amount of heat in some of these posts is making my screen glow
brighter than usual ...

I might be wrong but it seems to me that the essence of the 'conflict'
is not as much about whether or not Tim's work was 'correct', nor even
about whether or not it is 'interesting/useful'.
It seems to me that what gets people emotionally involved and displaying
either aggressive or defensive behaviors (on either side) is the idea that
Tim's analysis should be applied to the freight car fleets on our layouts.
Especially on "my" layout or when considering the content of "my" personal
collection of freight cars ("my" is meant to refer to "whoever is talking
at the time" - even when the "my" is actually a group of guys such as at a
club).
The other thing that seems to be a source of the heat is when someone
says something like "Tim's analysis is nice - but it doesn't apply to
model railroading". And then a bunch feel they have to get in there and
'defend' Tim. Personally, I don't think he needs defending and I doubt he
would have wanted it. I've read Tim's own words and he always seemed to
be talking about 'trends' and 'imbalances' in our model freight car
fleets and not about "right and wrong".

Perhaps we need to re-visit the concept of "It's my railroad and I
get to do it my way." I don't think anyone needs to defend the choices
they make (or don't even think about it as a choice) - or have made.
On either side of this topic. And I certainly don't think that anyone
should be making statements such as "the freight cars on this layout
are all wrong because they don't represent Tim's analysis". And I
don't think that many of the posts have reflected such attitudes. But
here we are with a lot of "he said/they said/I said" quotes that pick
at details in any one opinion.

Having said that - I'll restate that when I ... and many others on this
list ... go to operate on a layout and the skew is -soooo- heavily shifted
in any one direction that it is "immediately noticeable" that we tend to
feel that maybe the owner has a bit too much affection for his particular
RR. Heck, I've even known guys who are put off because there weren't any
cars from his particular favorite RR running on someone else's layout!

- Jim (Betz) in San Jose


Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypothesis.

major_denis_bloodnok <smokeandsteam@...>
 

This is willfully ignoring how Tim went about what he did. He
took the data and analyzed it to see what happened. He often said he
was pretty surprised by the results. But that's not a "leap of
faith,"
it's believing the analysis.
Thank you Tony

I don't think that he ever set out to prove anything one way or
another but rather to find out if there was any thing useful to be
extracted form the data he had.

Tim's work produced results that do seem counter intuitive if we stick
to some long held conventions of freightcar distribution, but ones
that haven't yet been countered with similar studies showing different
results.

Certainly there are some oddities in some wheel reports, but the
overall picture based on his work is clear. Now, if we had other
equally rigorous studies showing different results such as a closer
correspondence with theories about regional or connecting roads we
woudl need to look at these and see if we can find out why

However there are other ideas worth thinking about if we are
considering model railroads rather than real ones.

For example, a collection of freight cars weighted with cars from a
specific region can help provide a sense of time and place as much as
the locomotives and scenery can - it may not be perfectly accurate if
you adhere to the school that says "always model the average and never
the unusual", but it's perfectly believable if carried out in
moderation.

I'm not advocating a complete "build-what-you-like" philosophy, simply
suggesting that Tim's work should be treated as more of a field guide
than a stone tablet. The up and down rythm of varying rooflines and
car types is much more effective in catching the look and feel of a
real steam freight train than an over-disciplined adherence to a
mystical formula of freight car distribution.


Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton


Re: Freight car distribution

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

-It is a STARTING place - I have yet to hear anyone offer a different
starting place based on data other than their own opinion, and frankly,
I'd rather take my chances with the data ;^)

Did you read my post about a distance based algorithm. Selecting the weighting factors is a guess, but if I had to bet, I'd say it will give me something closer to real distributions on railroads like FEC, B&M-MEC-BAR, WP and many ithers, if they were observable.

> -The model DOES NOT preclude the use of oddballs, but it does INFORM the
modeler that these are oddballs.

But it's indication of oddballs can be very wrong.



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


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies.

Jim Betz
 

Guys,

The amount of heat in some of these posts is making my screen glow
brighter than usual ...

I might be wrong but it seems to me that the essence of the 'conflict'
is not as much about whether or not Tim's work was 'correct', nor even
about whether or not it is 'interesting/useful'.
It seems to me that what gets people emotionally involved and displaying
either aggressive or defensive behaviors (on either side) is the idea that
Tim's analysis should be applied to the freight car fleets on our layouts.
Especially on "my" layout or when considering the content of "my" personal
collection of freight cars ("my" is meant to refer to "whoever is talking
at the time" - even when the "my" is actually a group of guys such as at a
club).
The other thing that seems to be a source of the heat is when someone
says something like "Tim's analysis is nice - but it doesn't apply to
model railroading". And then a bunch feel they have to get in there and
'defend' Tim. Personally, I don't think he needs defending and I doubt he
would have wanted it. I've read Tim's own words and he always seemed to
be talking about 'trends' and 'imbalances' in our model freight car
fleets and not about "right and wrong".

Perhaps we need to re-visit the concept of "It's my railroad and I
get to do it my way." I don't think anyone needs to defend the choices
they make (or don't even think about it as a choice) - or have made.
On either side of this topic. And I certainly don't think that anyone
should be making statements such as "the freight cars on this layout
are all wrong because they don't represent Tim's analysis". And I
don't think that many of the posts have reflected such attitudes. But
here we are with a lot of "he said/they said/I said" quotes that pick
at details in any one opinion.

Having said that - I'll restate that when I ... and many others on this
list ... go to operate on a layout and the skew is -soooo- heavily shifted
in any one direction that it is "immediately noticeable" that we tend to
feel that maybe the owner has a bit too much affection for his particular
RR. Heck, I've even known guys who are put off because there weren't any
cars from his particular favorite RR running on someone else's layout!

- Jim (Betz) in San Jose


Re: Naperville 2008...

Jack Burgess
 

That's what I needed...I didn't get a Naperville flyer (but do get the
Pleasanton one). Thanks...

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

The Naperville flyer can be seen at my site www.sunshinekits.com. Click on
the Sunshine meets link. I received this flyer / registration form on July
30th. It's pretty fresh.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon


Re: Naperville 2008...

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

The Naperville flyer can be seen at my site www.sunshinekits.com. Click on
the Sunshine meets link. I received this flyer / registration form on July
30th. It's pretty fresh.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
water.kresse@comcast.net
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 10:43 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Naperville 2008...

Whose site has the Naperville 2008 registration again?

Does it have any updates since the first flyer?

Al Kresse


Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypothesis.

Stokes John
 

Tony,

I can except that, on a theoretical basis, which is different than what some of the comments have conveyed, and time to move on. The logic of it still just escapes me, but I can't completely put my finger on it, or why I think the data, while perhaps valid for what it is, has something missing, but sometimes one has to accept what seems improbable and deal with it until better data is unearthed, if ever.


Thanks for the more rational explanation.

John S.



To: STMFC@yahoogroups.comFrom: thompson@signaturepress.comDate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 11:18:26 -0700Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypothesis.




John Stokes wrote:> Finally got some response other than the repetition of the studies. > No, not meant to be insulting at all, but I think correct for the > notion that this "data" applies absolutely. I don't think Tim is > saying that the equal distribution accurately depicts the status on > every railroad in the country on every day of every month of every > year . . .No, Tim did not, and I think would be horrified if anyone so applies it. He was quite knowledgeable about prototype car handling and knew about all the variables people think they are the first to point out.> And I have looked at the facts, and they are more than statistics > based on small samples, and they say that this mathematical precision > did not occur in real life. But I would like to hear why that is not > correct. Tell those who disbelieve, in a good concise paragraph again, > the meat of the theory and the facts that back it up. I am willing to > try to learn.I personally think Tim's data say very clearly that the appearance of free-running cars like box cars DID follow, statistically, not absolutely with mathematical precision (Tim never said anything like that, so let's drop it now), the proportions in the national car fleet. That means that in MOST cases, the ancient hobby rules of thumb, than interchange partners dominate other roads and that the farther away the railroad, the less likely are its cars, are wrong.OF COURSE there are other variables. OF COURSE this doesn't work in every location or on every train. The point is that it's the underlying reality. Anyone who doesn't have better data than Tim's will just have to get used to it.Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.comPublishers of books on railroad history

117561 - 117580 of 192720