Date   

Re: Freight car distribution

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Malcolm,

For fleet selection, the idea of adding a "weight" to the percentage
of each railroad's fleet is appealing to me. This encompasses the
idea of "home road", and "close affiliates". For the home road the
weight factor might be 3x or 5x, direct connections might be 2x,
with more distant lines 1.5x to .75x -- just as examples! Also, as
I noted yesterday, if your physical fleet ..........................
============

D'accord !

I lke what you said. Off line to you to clutter the lsit with more traffic.


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


Re: Freight car distribution

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "wmcclark1980" What we have is the problem that always occurs when using statistics.
Most people won't accept that a relatively small sample size can
forecast much larger populations with extreme accuracy.
===========

That's not what the discussion is about Walter. For that theory to work you need a population that is homogenous with respect to some variable. With railrad box cars, we are working with lumpy distributions with varying degrees of skewness and nothing near a normal or poisson or other kind of distributionfor which we know how to calculate statistical significance.


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


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

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

I have to respond that I agree with the last item in this digest just because I so often take exception to what Tim says, but this time I'm right with him.



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


Re: Modern Data?

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "timboconnor@comcast.net" ) ------------ -- 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.
===============

I can't really believe you missed the point so widely Tim - you must be trying to give me a hard time. I've not suggesttd any formula. I've said the distribution is not knowable and presented some factors that support that conclusion.


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


Re: Freight car distribution

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor writes:

"And I forgot to add, for Mike Brock, that waybill assignments do
NOT determine train composition."

Hmmm. Ok. What is the point? I Don't follow.

"Once the destinations for the
cars have been chosen more or less randomly,"

Huh? I guess I'll have to ask for an explaination. Certainly the destination for eastbound car PFE 6439 with a load of wine destined for Omaha would...I hope...not be sent to Portland from Green River.

Mike Brock


Re: Freight car distribution - long way around

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "timboconnor@comcast.net" 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...
===========

You have to wonder whether that increased or decreased net income. The percentage increase in line haul cost was much higher than the percentage increase in their divison of revenue, divisions being based on short line mileage. For traffic that had a less than, for example, a five percent margin it could have been a loer, but a winner at 18 % margin. The 50's was when you could lose money on every move but make it up on volume. PRR was famous for that.

Railroad costs were 80 % variable with ton-miles. We know that becasue after years of study the ICC said so.


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.

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Perhaps the original staement should have been SQUARELY on the head. I've bent a lot of nails.

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


Re: freight car distribution - rejecting the equal distribution hypo

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Cyril, I like your approach, but two comment/questions.

> 3. If we can show that in 1910 the non home box cars are distributed by national roster

Has anyone ever done this ? BC of course.

> 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.

Does it really make sense to you that any one SP&S or DSS&A or BAR or FEC car would be as likelto get to your railroad as a car from T&NO or IGN or any other railroad that got near Houston ?


Cyril Durrenberger


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


HO scale caboose kits FS

Fred Mullins
 

I have the following caboose kits for sale.

Wright track ACL M5 early kit $40
Wright track ACL M5 early kit $40

Smokey mountian model works
Southern wood cab kit $55
Southern wood kit started w/one pc glued to another $40

Prices do not include shipping/ins. Contact me offlist if interested.
Thanks
Fred Mullins


Re: Freight car distribution

laramielarry <ostresh@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

"You show SP ... 4.0% [of the national fleet] but Tim shoed[sic] 3.9%"

Hi Mike

You are correct: Tim Gilbert's data shows that 3.9% of the national
boxcar fleet is SP-Pac, not 4.0% as I posted. My figure resulted
from my not having an "other" category for railroads that Tim did not
include in his table (which is also why my total cars differed from
his).

Here is the corrected table to supercede the one I posted in #75229:

RR___Number___Nat'l %___Random %
ACL___13,831___1.92%___1.91%
AT&SF___35,234___4.90%___4.89%
B&M___2,755___0.38%___0.38%
B&O___28,683___3.99%___4.00%
C&EI___1,185___0.16%___0.17%
C&NW___23,284___3.24%___3.24%
C&O___21,699___3.02%___3.02%
CB&Q___31,634___4.40%___4.41%
CGA___5,153___0.72%___0.72%
CGW___3,622___0.50%___0.50%
CMO___3,422___0.48%___0.47%
CNJ___1,757___0.24%___0.24%
CNJ-CRP___1,247___0.17%___0.17%
CRI&P___17,160___2.39%___2.39%
D&H___2,469___0.34%___0.34%
DL&W___7,585___1.05%___1.05%
DM&IR___337___0.05%___0.05%
DRG&W___5,094___0.71%___0.70%
EJ&E___1,427___0.20%___0.20%
ERIE___12,070___1.68%___1.68%
GM&O___6,177___0.86%___0.86%
GN___22,399___3.11%___3.11%
GTW___8,556___1.19%___1.19%
IC___21,248___2.95%___2.97%
KCS___2,923___0.41%___0.41%
L&N___13,324___1.85%___1.84%
LV___5,584___0.78%___0.78%
MILW___32,076___4.46%___4.45%
MKT___5,235___0.73%___0.72%
MP___18,112___2.52%___2.52%
MP-IGN___2,572___0.36%___0.36%
N&W___8,986___1.25%___1.26%
NC&SL___3,603___0.50%___0.50%
NH___6,012___0.84%___0.84%
NKP___11,255___1.56%___1.56%
NP___19,317___2.69%___2.68%
NYC___66,867___9.30%___9.30%
P&LE___4,118___0.57%___0.57%
PRR___64,670___8.99%___9.00%
RDG___7,639___1.06%___1.07%
SAL___12,396___1.72%___1.72%
SLSF___13,255___1.84%___1.84%
SOO___8,728___1.21%___1.22%
SOU___26,331___3.66%___3.65%
SP-Pac___27,757___3.86%___3.84%
SP-T&NO___7,438___1.03%___1.04%
SSW___3,700___0.51%___0.51%
T&P___4,288___0.60%___0.59%
UP___23,758___3.30%___3.31%
WAB___11,572___1.61%___1.61%
WM___2,143___0.30%___0.30%
WP___1,995___0.28%___0.27%
Other___25,667___3.57%___3.57%
Total___719,349___100.00%___100.00%

I think that Tim O'Connor (message #75255)answered most of the other
questions you asked about my analysis.

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh


Re: Freight car distribution UP > Wabash

Allen Rueter
 

A data point, the Wabash didn't get much from the UP in Council Bluffs (4100+ cars in '47),
but they did get 38500+ in KC.

--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO

----- Original Message ----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:54:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution

8<
And to help you out, the connections at Omaha
were 7 -- C&NW/CMStP&O, MILW, CRI&P, CB&Q, CGW, WABASH, and IC.
These 7 fought over the tidal wave of traffic the UP terminated
at Omaha/Council Bluffs -- and a good part of that wave was
coming from the SP. Does it seem odd to you that the UP would
have blocks of cars for its eastern connections?

Maybe you should study UP classification yards instead. I've seen
diagrams that show tracks marked for railroad ABC or XYZ -- the UP
probably held cars for the Milw@Omaha or SP@Ogden (etc) on
specific classification tracks. And it probably cleaned out those
tracks daily, or twice daily -- resulting in (surprise!) blocks of
cars that were not random at all.

8<

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight car distribution

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

Mike--

Thanks for adding some much-needed levity to this discussion. I had
a chuckle or several. When part of one's background is Eastern
European, the story about your division chief becomes especially
funny. Then there is that game that has a one in six chance (or you
could express it as being 17.333333333333% chance of/likely/probable,
etc., pick your favourite phraseology) of success (or is that
defeat?) called Russian Roulette.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

Walter M. Clark writes:

"What we have is the problem that always occurs when using
statistics.
Most people won't accept that a relatively small sample size can
forecast much larger populations with extreme accuracy. Just listen
to the arguments after a national poll is released, where they
polled
only a few thousand people and used that data to project within
just a
few percentage points of error what the entire Nation's population
thinks."

Well...it all depends upon the selection of data process. IOW, do
you
believe that if you chose your entire sample from either of the
attendees at
one of the political conventions that you would get usable results?

"Tim's and Dave's analysis is for an entire year."

It is? That's news to me...although you may be correct. I've been
asking
about that. Tim's 1947 Fraley, however, contains the UP trains from
only
about a month...mine, which he says blew his theory to "hell"
covers a month
and a half.

"I had a professor in Graduate School who, in the Statistics class,
always brought a cloth drawstring bag with 100 red and 100 black
poker
chips to class. No matter what he was teaching, and no matter how
big
or how small the numbers he was working with, a handful of chips
from
that bag was ALWAYS extremely close to what the calculations said."

Ah. Reminds me of my first encounter with a crap table in Vegas.
The
Showboat Casino out on Henderson Hy...1964. While I knew 2 weeks
later that
the dice have no memory [ at least they weren't sposed to ]...I
noticed some
guy making quite a successful run. Soon I was betting against him.
Soon I
was broke. I have no idea how many passes the guy made...27 or so
was
supposed to be the known record...but he came close to breaking it.
Had I
come to Vegas 2 weeks earlier I would not afterward have to work
for 33 yrs
for NASA. Incidentally, I sat through a similar statistics meeting.
In this
case, it was a Lockheed presentation in which the presenter claimed
that
their software was 85% successful. My division chief [ he spoke
with a
German ascent for some reason...one of his friends had a problem
that when
he got excited his right arm flew up as if he was pointing toward a
distant
mountain ] noted that we didn't really think 85% was very good and
that
success was a 0 or 1. Sorta like trying to drive from Kennedy Space
Center
to St. Louis only to have your car explode while crossing the
Tennessee
River in Cairo, IL. 85% success?

Mike Brock


NdeM photo in Mike Pearsall's "The Northerms".

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

An undated Victor Hand colour photo on page 2 of this book (which I
picked up today) shows the following boxcars behind the tender of NdeM
Niagra 3041 somewhere in Mexico---(all are steel 10' i.h. except where
noted)

CPR 40', CB&Q 40' 10'-6" i.h., Wabash 40', Frisco 40' steel frame 8'-6"
i.h., T&P 40', D&H PS-1 10'-6" i.h., NYC as the first seven cars. More
steel cars behind, roads hard to discern in photo.

Not to provoke anyone or anything, but this shows just how far some
roads' cars got.

Steve Lucas.


Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

rwitt_2000
 

Jason Sanford wrote:

I am building a wood deck for my CB&Q 52' flat and the original brass
deck measures out to a 2x6 which seems small. What size planking
should I be using? Thanks.

Jason,

The planking use on the B&O P-31, which were based upon he AAR alternate
standard flatcar from a design by the Erie RR, was 2-3/4" x 6-1/4".
These measurements are based upon field measurements. So 3"x6" probably
would be a better choice.

Bob Witt


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

But once the fleet is determined, most XM car selections should be
based on a mathematically random chance, subject to some individual
cases of 'skew' for specially equipped or assigned cars.

And I forgot to add, for Mike Brock, that waybill assignments do
NOT determine train composition. Once the destinations for the
cars have been chosen more or less randomly, then the logic of
train operations takes over, and has a significant effect on the
makeup of individual trains.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

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.
Malcolm,

For fleet selection, the idea of adding a "weight" to the percentage
of each railroad's fleet is appealing to me. This encompasses the
idea of "home road", and "close affiliates". For the home road the
weight factor might be 3x or 5x, direct connections might be 2x,
with more distant lines 1.5x to .75x -- just as examples! Also, as
I noted yesterday, if your physical fleet over/ or under/ represents
a prototype, then a weight factor can bring it into correspondence
for purposes of waybill assignments.

But once the fleet is determined, most XM car selections should be
based on a mathematically random chance, subject to some individual
cases of 'skew' for specially equipped or assigned cars. With paper
waybills and car cards, this might be as simple as a first in-first
out (FIFO) tray at the staging/terminal point, or as a small series
of cascading trays (to implement weight factors as jump moves ahead
in the series).

Many people argue that few people have 200 or 300 freight cars. That
may be so, I don't know. I know many people who have far more. And in
a club with 20 or more people, 1,000 cars should not present much of
a hurdle at all. I know the North Shore layout has about that many cars
on the layout or in storage trays, and in the future will have room
for several hundred more.

Tim O'Connor


Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

parkcitybranch <parkcitybranch@...>
 

I am building a wood deck for my CB&Q 52' flat and the original brass
deck measures out to a 2x6 which seems small. What size planking
should I be using? Thanks.

Jason Sanford


Naperville 2008...

Andy Carlson
 

Steve,
This is the link to the activities of the Naperville
2008 RPM meet.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA

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: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies. Was: Re: Re:Fwd: Re: Freigh

Stokes John
 

Richard, this is about what some of us have been saying, although not so articulately as you. It is not a statistical game to be won, but it is about believability and approximation. The data talked about helps, but it is far from being the golden rule. And as you note, the fact is that we simply do not have a large percentage of the usable and desirable freight cars in reasonable production, and probably will not for years, if ever. And older cars were often used for the reasons you state. The variables are enormous. So the trick seems to be not having a fleet that looks out of place, that does not have any glaring errors, and gives the appearance of a reasonable facsimile of the typical, or even atypical put prototypical, freight train of the chosen period, knowing that it is probably off quite a bit given the constraints and variables, but still is in the ball park. I think that is all we can hope for, and some will be more successful than others. But the striving to get closer to nirvana is also an important factor and one some folks really enjoy. So it goes.

Have we completely stomped this thread to a pulp?

John Stokes
Bellevue, Wa





To: STMFC@yahoogroups.comFrom: rhendrickson@opendoor.comDate: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:43:17 -0700Subject: Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies. Was: Re: [STMFC] Re:Fwd: Re: Freigh




Sorry to be slow in responding; I was away over the weekend.On Aug 17, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:> On Fri, August 15, 2008 5:45 pm, devansprr wrote:>> > But I do not have good info on details such as tank car manufacturer> type (e.g. 11, 21, 27, etc). If that exists let me know and I'll > search> for it - there is a wealth of data in this site - it could use a full> word index system for quicker and more accurate searches.>> Tank cars - (Information from Tim Gilbert summarizing the January > 1943 ORER)> Union Tank Car Co. 38,707> General American Transportation Co. 27,867> Pennsylvania-Conley Tank - div. of GATX 10,327> Shippers Car Line 6,949> Sinclair Refining Co. 6,447> AT&SF 3,567> US War Department 2,475> SP - Pacific Lines 2,219> Gulf Oil Co. 1,551> UP 1,096> Dupont 1,068> Sun Oil Co. 1,035>> However, given that the ORER does not allow us to decipher types, > and tank> car companies were notorious for mixing cars from multiple makers into> series, the best I think we can do is try to convey the impression > of the> WWII fleet.>From my perspective, "conveying the impression" isn't just the best we can do, it's exactly what we're trying to do: convey the visual impression in miniature of the real thing. It seems to me that, in the process of flogging the subject of freight car distribution to death, some list members have lost sight of that fact. Building a realistic freight car fleet for a model that represents a specific railroad at a specific time and place is what most, if not all, of us want to do. Every kind of information that helps us do that is valuable: train and yard photos, conductor's train sheets, switch lists, and, yes, the insightful statistical analyses of Tim Gilbert, Dave Nelson, et. al. Depending on prototype RR, location, era, and other variables each of us has to interpret the available data for ourselves, with the objective of running trains which will be visually convincing not just to the average viewer but to the cognoscenti, i.e. the kind of people who subscribe to this list. Above all, we want to avoid the kinds of anachronisms or improbabilities that will make the illusion go "pop!" - e.g., in the case of WW II tank car trains, running RC's otherwise very nice models of postwar welded ICC-103Ws.>Having said that, let me elaborate a bit on Bruce's useful observations about WW II tank cars.> Some rules of thumb -> -UTLX had the biggest fleet so the X-3 would likely be the most common> tank (Lots of Sunshine kits!) and IIRC, the 8K size was NOT the most> common (10K?)>Yes, 10K gal. X-3s were far more numerous than 8K gal. X-3s, and should be ubiquitous. But remember that UTL also owned many cars that were older types (the frameless type Vs and the similar type Xs with underframes in 6, 8, and 10K sizes) as well as cars of other than UTL design (e.g., a whole bunch of early GATC radial-course 8K gal. cars which UTL purchased new in the early'20s as well as some 8K and 10K AC&F Type 21s, and even a few STC tank cars, all acquired second-hand).>>> -AC&F production of type 21 cars outnumbered type 27 by a significant> margin, and the 8K size was the most common of the type 21s.>More importantly, by the 1930s when the Type 27s had replaced the Type 21s, few oil companies were buying new tank cars, having turned to pipelines as a more efficient and economical way to transport petroleum products. Similarly, few GATC Type 30s were in petroleum service. The vast majority of the cars that were equipped for, and available for, crude oil shipments during WW II were built in the 'teens and '20s.>>> -GATC built tanks were fairly common and we have no reasonable > model in HO>Type 30 models are on the horizon, but - as noted above - the GATC tank cars we most need are earlier cars, many with radial course tanks. And we need a lot of those.>>> -"Oddballs" such as the UTLX "van Dyke", and earlier type 7 and 11 > tanks> should not appear in great numbers, but were certainly in use.>I agree that the Van Dykes would not have been numerous, though a surprising number of them did get resurrected for the WW II oil crisis. I don't agree about the earlier AC&F cars; Type 11s and Type 17s, and even some Type 7s, were very common in the fleets of many petroleum shippers, and the many WW II photos I have show them all over the place.>>> So, for now, a fleet of Sunshine and Walthers/P2K tanks with a few> Intermountain, Precision Scale, Speedwitch (NATX tanks), IM/Tichy > bashed> USG-A, Southern Car and Foundry (STC cars) and whatever else I've> forgotten (like the RC brass GATC cars and other brass cars) will > make a> reasonable fleet with the exception of missing GATC cars. Like > boxcars,> this approach will give you the varying sizes and features seen in > WWII> era "pipelines on rails">All true, as far as it goes (and Bruce goes about as far as he reasonably can at present). We certainly need GATC cars built ca. 1915-1930, but the problem is that GATC kept changing them so that some designs were built only for a very few years, so we probably won't see these in styrene any time soon. I would add that we very much need models of the UTL class X cars, which were built in large numbers and lasted, in many cases, into the 1960s. Something else we need are 3-course AC&F Type 21 tanks to go on the P2K underframes; the four course tanks modeled by L-L were built only in the early 1920s, and I have many photos of three course 10K gal. Type 21s in petroleum service. Once Jon Cagle gets his STC models in production, we could also use Pennsylvania Tank Car Co. underframes; PTC's plant was right next door to STC's in Sharon, PA and PTC bought tanks from STC to put on their own underframes, so a decent PTC underframe combined with Cagle's STC tanks and a few minor detail modifications would enable us to model another group of tank cars that were produced in large numbers in the 1920s. Other tank cars that have been modeled in brass over the years will add variety, if you can find (and, nowadays, afford) them. However, in the forseeable future, it's not going to be possible to model realistic WW II tank trains by popping RTR plastic models out of their boxes and putting them on the track.As for comprehensive prototype information on steam era tank cars, I'm working on it, but a couple of other books are currently higher on my priority list.Richard Hendrickson


Re: A Purpose For Frt Car Distribution Studies. Was: Re: Re:Fwd: Re: Freigh

Richard Hendrickson
 

Sorry to be slow in responding; I was away over the weekend.

On Aug 17, 2008, at 4:03 PM, Bruce Smith wrote:

On Fri, August 15, 2008 5:45 pm, devansprr wrote:

But I do not have good info on details such as tank car manufacturer
type (e.g. 11, 21, 27, etc). If that exists let me know and I'll
search
for it - there is a wealth of data in this site - it could use a full
word index system for quicker and more accurate searches.

Tank cars - (Information from Tim Gilbert summarizing the January
1943 ORER)
Union Tank Car Co. 38,707
General American Transportation Co. 27,867
Pennsylvania-Conley Tank - div. of GATX 10,327
Shippers Car Line 6,949
Sinclair Refining Co. 6,447
AT&SF 3,567
US War Department 2,475
SP - Pacific Lines 2,219
Gulf Oil Co. 1,551
UP 1,096
Dupont 1,068
Sun Oil Co. 1,035

However, given that the ORER does not allow us to decipher types,
and tank
car companies were notorious for mixing cars from multiple makers into
series, the best I think we can do is try to convey the impression
of the
WWII fleet.



























From my perspective, "conveying the impression" isn't just the best
we can do, it's exactly what we're trying to do: convey the visual
impression in miniature of the real thing. It seems to me that, in
the process of flogging the subject of freight car distribution to
death, some list members have lost sight of that fact. Building a
realistic freight car fleet for a model that represents a specific
railroad at a specific time and place is what most, if not all, of us
want to do. Every kind of information that helps us do that is
valuable: train and yard photos, conductor's train sheets, switch
lists, and, yes, the insightful statistical analyses of Tim Gilbert,
Dave Nelson, et. al. Depending on prototype RR, location, era, and
other variables each of us has to interpret the available data for
ourselves, with the objective of running trains which will be
visually convincing not just to the average viewer but to the
cognoscenti, i.e. the kind of people who subscribe to this list.
Above all, we want to avoid the kinds of anachronisms or
improbabilities that will make the illusion go "pop!" - e.g., in the
case of WW II tank car trains, running RC's otherwise very nice
models of postwar welded ICC-103Ws.

Having said that, let me elaborate a bit on Bruce's useful
observations about WW II tank cars.

Some rules of thumb -
-UTLX had the biggest fleet so the X-3 would likely be the most common
tank (Lots of Sunshine kits!) and IIRC, the 8K size was NOT the most
common (10K?)





Yes, 10K gal. X-3s were far more numerous than 8K gal. X-3s, and
should be ubiquitous. But remember that UTL also owned many cars
that were older types (the frameless type Vs and the similar type Xs
with underframes in 6, 8, and 10K sizes) as well as cars of other
than UTL design (e.g., a whole bunch of early GATC radial-course 8K
gal. cars which UTL purchased new in the early'20s as well as some 8K
and 10K AC&F Type 21s, and even a few STC tank cars, all acquired
second-hand).


-AC&F production of type 21 cars outnumbered type 27 by a significant
margin, and the 8K size was the most common of the type 21s.





More importantly, by the 1930s when the Type 27s had replaced the
Type 21s, few oil companies were buying new tank cars, having turned
to pipelines as a more efficient and economical way to transport
petroleum products. Similarly, few GATC Type 30s were in petroleum
service. The vast majority of the cars that were equipped for, and
available for, crude oil shipments during WW II were built in the
'teens and '20s.


-GATC built tanks were fairly common and we have no reasonable
model in HO




Type 30 models are on the horizon, but - as noted above - the GATC
tank cars we most need are earlier cars, many with radial course
tanks. And we need a lot of those.

-"Oddballs" such as the UTLX "van Dyke", and earlier type 7 and 11
tanks
should not appear in great numbers, but were certainly in use.




I agree that the Van Dykes would not have been numerous, though a
surprising number of them did get resurrected for the WW II oil
crisis. I don't agree about the earlier AC&F cars; Type 11s and Type
17s, and even some Type 7s, were very common in the fleets of many
petroleum shippers, and the many WW II photos I have show them all
over the place.


So, for now, a fleet of Sunshine and Walthers/P2K tanks with a few
Intermountain, Precision Scale, Speedwitch (NATX tanks), IM/Tichy
bashed
USG-A, Southern Car and Foundry (STC cars) and whatever else I've
forgotten (like the RC brass GATC cars and other brass cars) will
make a
reasonable fleet with the exception of missing GATC cars. Like
boxcars,
this approach will give you the varying sizes and features seen in
WWII
era "pipelines on rails"










All true, as far as it goes (and Bruce goes about as far as he
reasonably can at present). We certainly need GATC cars built ca.
1915-1930, but the problem is that GATC kept changing them so that
some designs were built only for a very few years, so we probably
won't see these in styrene any time soon. I would add that we very
much need models of the UTL class X cars, which were built in large
numbers and lasted, in many cases, into the 1960s. Something else we
need are 3-course AC&F Type 21 tanks to go on the P2K underframes;
the four course tanks modeled by L-L were built only in the early
1920s, and I have many photos of three course 10K gal. Type 21s in
petroleum service. Once Jon Cagle gets his STC models in production,
we could also use Pennsylvania Tank Car Co. underframes; PTC's plant
was right next door to STC's in Sharon, PA and PTC bought tanks from
STC to put on their own underframes, so a decent PTC underframe
combined with Cagle's STC tanks and a few minor detail modifications
would enable us to model another group of tank cars that were
produced in large numbers in the 1920s. Other tank cars that have
been modeled in brass over the years will add variety, if you can
find (and, nowadays, afford) them. However, in the forseeable
future, it's not going to be possible to model realistic WW II tank
trains by popping RTR plastic models out of their boxes and putting
them on the track.

As for comprehensive prototype information on steam era tank cars,
I'm working on it, but a couple of other books are currently higher
on my priority list.

Richard Hendrickson

114461 - 114480 of 189655