Date   

Re: ORER inaccuracy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Cyril Durrenberger wrote:
I think the early ORER's were not as accurate, certainly prior to 1912 or 1913. I am not sure what happened to change things. They began to also report additional dimensions like size of door openings, etc around that time
Entirely true. At some point the ORER was legally made part of the tariff structure, thus giving an impetus for reporting to be as accurate as possible--maybe in that 1912-1913 time frame.
If you start with the first ORER in 1885 and go forward, there is a continuous increase in the amount of descriptive dimensions, in the breakdown of car number groups by type, and in the proportion of railroads which actually reported the numbers of cars in a group. (It's a frustration for those interested in SP's Texas & Louisiana Lines that those roads for a number of years did not report numbers of cars.)
Cyril mentioned that private owners were evidently not required to report in the earlier years. This is quite true, as several oil companies which I know had tank cars did not report them until 1910 or so.

In many cases ORER entries indicate the date of the last update at the bottom of the entry. That will provide a clue as to how often the data was updated.
Yes, and in those pre-1910 years, this is important, as smaller roads and even some pretty big ones like the Alton would leave their entry unchanged for month after month. Digging into early ORERs requires tracking this sort of information. I think that date continued to be reported at least as late as the ending date of our interests on this list.

Even if there are some minor problems, in general the ORER is still the best data set available either for an individual railroad or for the whole nationwide (and international) fleets.
As a general statement, I agree with this. I know of no car record which is free of error, but on balance, the ORER is the most dependable, in my experience.

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


Sunshine 50' Milwaukee autobox car kits.

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

Please refresh my memory: I am in the midst of assembling two Sunshine cast resin 50' Milwaukee auto boxcar kits, one ribside, one flat welded. The Sunshine directions are the same as they included in their earlier 40' ribside boxcar kit, which creates some problems. The 40' directions specify and depict cast caps on the underframe cross bearers and- the placement of a number of cross ties both between bearers, but also between bearers and bolsters. However, none are included in either of the kits, and there are no 50' underframe photos to tell one way or another.

My preliminary conclusion is that the 50' cars did not have these features (cross bearer caps and cross ties), and the directions simply do not make this distinction.

Am I correct?


Denny S. Anspach MD
Okoboji, IA


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Cyril Durrenberger
 

I had the same experience for the SP annual reports.

Anthony Thompson <thompson@signaturepress.com> wrote: Cyril Durrenberger wrote:
Another source of general data on car fleets is the railroad reports
to the state railroad commission. These typically have a list of the
number of locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars listed by type.
I have never been able to get these data to agree exactly with ORER
data. This is for railroads that ran in one state. It could be a
difference in the reporting times, etc. In most cases there is
general agreement.
The ones I've seen which went to the California Railroad
Commission are pretty abbreviated, but I haven't tried to see if they
agree with the ORER. Another source is the Annual Reports of some
companies in some eras, in which (again, abbreviated) car rosters are
included. The ones in SP reports in the early 20th century agree rather
badly with the ORER, with significantly higher OR lower car numbers,
compared to the ORER, in the same report. I have no idea why, but gave
up the idea of relying on those data.

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: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 8/19/2008 10:21:16 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mlaughlinnyc@yahoo.com writes:

There are no data sets that truly support either model. Because railroads
didn’t keep counts of foreign cars on line by ownership, the necessary data
sets probably never existed. So the choice is between



I would suggest that this data was collected to some extent by the
accounting departments. How else would they determine the per diem payments to the
various roads. Yes, I recognize that per deims were frequently offset by Road
A with what Road B owed Road A and only the balance actually paid. But
nevertheless the number of cars on property each day needed to be known.

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)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Cyril Durrenberger wrote:
Another source of general data on car fleets is the railroad reports to the state railroad commission. These typically have a list of the number of locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars listed by type. I have never been able to get these data to agree exactly with ORER data. This is for railroads that ran in one state. It could be a difference in the reporting times, etc. In most cases there is general agreement.
The ones I've seen which went to the California Railroad Commission are pretty abbreviated, but I haven't tried to see if they agree with the ORER. Another source is the Annual Reports of some companies in some eras, in which (again, abbreviated) car rosters are included. The ones in SP reports in the early 20th century agree rather badly with the ORER, with significantly higher OR lower car numbers, compared to the ORER, in the same report. I have no idea why, but gave up the idea of relying on those data.

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: ORER inaccuracy

Cyril Durrenberger
 

Another interesting item that I located was a large book on a court case involving rates in Texas. It seems that some valuations (likely the data from the annual reports to the reailroad commission) were also used to set rates. The H&TC and GC&SF sued over the rates. Part of the evidence was a book that listed all of their rolling stock at that time, 1913 along with a few poor, small photos. In some cases there are the only photos that I have located on some of this equipment.

Cyril Durrenberger

water.kresse@comcast.net wrote:
In 1916-1917, during the run up to WW1, the C&O folk took many card file photos of freight cars in various series. Somehow, they managed to find cars freshly painted and in very good repair. If their degree of updates weren't obvious, they made sure were marked such "steel center sill", etc. Unfortunately, those card photos only list the builder, series and not the actual cars still in service.

As a side note, ORER's must miss rather quick turn around shoppings. The C&O replaced the 6-wheel trucks on their 91-ton gons in circa 1925. No drop in the ORER reporting "in service" numbers. They also removed their clean-out/emergency drop-doors and mechanisms, and even re-plumbed their brake hardware . . . again without drops of their report-able available cars in these two series.

Cars in these seriers were also marked TIDEWATER TEST between 1924-1927. Would that imply they were not available for general revenue service? . . . or just keep an eye on them and don't let them wonder off?

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@mchsi.com>
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Cyril and Lynn Durrenberger
<durrecj@...> wrote:

The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and
they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another
problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger
Hmmm... I was under the impression that after the initial ICC
valuation of the railroads, the law mandated that it be kept current.
So very likely the information is (or was) there, buried in the
archives, but one would have to start with the initial valuation and
then dig out each addition to and subtraction from that. Not an easy
task, and no telling if the updates are even available for study, if
they even still exist at all.

Then again, I seem to recall that it was this valuation process that
prompted railroads (at least the Soo Line) to implement the Authority
For Expenditure file system, so it is possible that this information
wasn't even reported, the ICC just mandated that it be tracked, and
the information be available in the RR's files if it was needed. That
means that the info now resides where each individual railroad kept
its archives, much of which is now lost.

Speaking of the Soo Line, I know the Mechanical Department at one time
maintained a card file with a discrete card for every single car on
the roster, on which items that could be classed as "betterments" were
noted. I have seen some of the cards. Unfortunately, the file itself
and most the cards are long gone.

Dennis


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Cyril Durrenberger
 

Dennis,

I think you are correct on the updating. I looked at the valuation files for the HE&WT, H&TC and some other SP lines. There was nothing in the files beyond the initial data. And what we were given had no information on the rolling stock. That came from another source. It could be that I was given only part of the files. Another issue is that maybe this all had gone to the T&NO files after the merger in 1927.

I have looked at the NP files on the M&I valuation in the Minnesota Historical Society. They had nothing beyond the initial survey. They did have a sheet for every piece of equipment. This was the inital survey. No updates. I know that for the buildings they do not have a complete set of plans etc as some are in the hands of collectors.

Cyril Durrenberger

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@mchsi.com> wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Cyril and Lynn Durrenberger
<durrecj@...> wrote:

The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and
they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another
problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger
Hmmm... I was under the impression that after the initial ICC
valuation of the railroads, the law mandated that it be kept current.
So very likely the information is (or was) there, buried in the
archives, but one would have to start with the initial valuation and
then dig out each addition to and subtraction from that. Not an easy
task, and no telling if the updates are even available for study, if
they even still exist at all.

Then again, I seem to recall that it was this valuation process that
prompted railroads (at least the Soo Line) to implement the Authority
For Expenditure file system, so it is possible that this information
wasn't even reported, the ICC just mandated that it be tracked, and
the information be available in the RR's files if it was needed. That
means that the info now resides where each individual railroad kept
its archives, much of which is now lost.

Speaking of the Soo Line, I know the Mechanical Department at one time
maintained a card file with a discrete card for every single car on
the roster, on which items that could be classed as "betterments" were
noted. I have seen some of the cards. Unfortunately, the file itself
and most the cards are long gone.

Dennis


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dennis Storzek wrote:
Hmmm... I was under the impression that after the initial ICC valuation of the railroads, the law mandated that it be kept current.
This is correct. The SP employee I know who worked on ORER submissions was in the SP's Valuation Department and they did indeed keep everything updated. But I don't know if that was reported to the ICC regularly. Years ago, I asked Bill Edson about that, and he believed there were no such reporting records at the ICC, but of course he may have been wrong.

Then again, I seem to recall that it was this valuation process that prompted railroads (at least the Soo Line) to implement the Authority For Expenditure file system . . .
A Harriman Lines innovation, IIRC, which indeed spread widely if not universally. Could it have been mandated by the ICC at some point?

. . . it is possible that this information wasn't even reported, the ICC just mandated that it be tracked, and the information be available in the RR's files if it was needed.
I would say this is the likeliest possibility.

Speaking of the Soo Line, I know the Mechanical Department at one time maintained a card file with a discrete card for every single car on the roster, on which items that could be classed as "betterments" were noted. I have seen some of the cards. Unfortunately, the file itself and most the cards are long gone.
Ditto for SP--they used 5x7 cards--but except for cabooses and MOW, all cards are gone AFAIK. But the PFE cards survive in substantial numbers (though well short of complete) at CSRM. What SP cards do survive are mostly at CSRM also.

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: ORER inaccuracy

water.kresse@...
 

In 1916-1917, during the run up to WW1, the C&O folk took many card file photos of freight cars in various series. Somehow, they managed to find cars freshly painted and in very good repair. If their degree of updates weren't obvious, they made sure were marked such "steel center sill", etc. Unfortunately, those card photos only list the builder, series and not the actual cars still in service.

As a side note, ORER's must miss rather quick turn around shoppings. The C&O replaced the 6-wheel trucks on their 91-ton gons in circa 1925. No drop in the ORER reporting "in service" numbers. They also removed their clean-out/emergency drop-doors and mechanisms, and even re-plumbed their brake hardware . . . again without drops of their report-able available cars in these two series.

Cars in these seriers were also marked TIDEWATER TEST between 1924-1927. Would that imply they were not available for general revenue service? . . . or just keep an eye on them and don't let them wonder off?

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@mchsi.com>
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Cyril and Lynn Durrenberger
<durrecj@...> wrote:

The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and
they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another
problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger
Hmmm... I was under the impression that after the initial ICC
valuation of the railroads, the law mandated that it be kept current.
So very likely the information is (or was) there, buried in the
archives, but one would have to start with the initial valuation and
then dig out each addition to and subtraction from that. Not an easy
task, and no telling if the updates are even available for study, if
they even still exist at all.

Then again, I seem to recall that it was this valuation process that
prompted railroads (at least the Soo Line) to implement the Authority
For Expenditure file system, so it is possible that this information
wasn't even reported, the ICC just mandated that it be tracked, and
the information be available in the RR's files if it was needed. That
means that the info now resides where each individual railroad kept
its archives, much of which is now lost.

Speaking of the Soo Line, I know the Mechanical Department at one time
maintained a card file with a discrete card for every single car on
the roster, on which items that could be classed as "betterments" were
noted. I have seen some of the cards. Unfortunately, the file itself
and most the cards are long gone.

Dennis


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Cyril Durrenberger wrote:
The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.
The ICC valuations are indeed different for different roads, and most certainly do contain errors. I have found numerous ones in the records for SP and subsidiaries, some of which are so obvious they must have been typos, not wrong records. That said, they are often very valuable snapshots.

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: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

But wouldn't that information be needed every day to pay for per diem
charges? Jack Burgess

Yes, on the PRR at least, each interchange point had a record (I have some)
of cars set-out and received, and the time, and that data was assembled for
forwarding to the finance offices for payment of per diem charges. Units
train blocks were provided in sum on that same sheet.

I had the opportunity to go through numerous indexes at the PRR archives
earlier this year, and was, as always, unable to find any of this
information.

I have been told many times that the Business Management folks in the PRR
kept many of these records, for use in business planning, which seems
obvious. But, they also destroyed the raw data (at some location), from what
I was told, since that data would be a valuable tool to competitors, or if in
the wrong hands, could be used to influence stock prices, if assembled
correctly. That was why train consists were destroyed, and why us PRR guys
have only few examples.

If the PRR had a policy of destroying lists of who got what, how much, and
when, we may never be able to answer some of these questions.

Oh, I also wrote a multi-piece article on what I did for my timeframe and
locale, in TKM, and there was only one person even vaguely interested. I
think I could have better spent my time (hundreds of hours) building more
models!

Elden Gatwood


Re: SP to UP traffic at Ogden

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

adrian hundhausen wrote:
Please excuse my ignorance, guys, my era of interest is much earlier than the 1940s, and maybe you have covered this before, but didn't the SP have an (extralegal) arrangement with the UP to turn over to the UP virtually all of its eastbound traffic at Ogden? An agreement which was in force for nearly the entire first half of the 20th century, and which was only terminated because the D&RGW challenged it in court and finally got it declared illegal?
There certainly was an arrangement, but hardly extralegal. It started with the original Transcontinental Railroad acts, which bound the CP and UP as "one continuous line," and a Supreme Court decision in the 1880s upheld this meaning of the law, implementing UP's favorable status at Ogden.
Your description sounds like you are thinking of the 1920s version. As part of the settlement of the 1922 Supreme Court case by UP, attempting to separate the CP from the SP, UP and SP agreed, as accepted by the ICC, to mutually support western traffic, including the Ogden transfer. The draft agreement was ratified by the ICC on February 6, 1923.
The D&RGW filed suit in the 1950s, arguing that this was restraint of trade and unfair to itself. After numerous hearings, the ICC voided the agreement, to all intents and purposes, in 1966.

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


Correct use of ORER - Was:ORER inaCcuracy

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Posted by: "Rob Kirkham" > Given the assertion (and I doubt any will argue it) that the ORER lists
would include equipment that was not really available for service - whether
retired or in storage or ....
==============

Note the change in topic heading. Listing a car not effectively in active service was not an inaccuracy.

The intent of the ORER was not to proivde a list of cars in use. It's primary purpose was as a tariff in which all of the information about a car perinent to the calculation of a rate could be found. Secondly, it was a reference source in which could be found dimensional and other data on a specific car. There was no intent that the ORER be usable for obtaining counts of particualr types of cars in service.

We have an asymetric situation here. It was mandatory for a car in revenue service to be listed in the ORER. In the absence of a listing, there would be cases in which a rate using the car could not be determined. There was no need for a listed car to ever be in service.

Railroads listed a car when it was known that it might be put into service. That might be when the car was ordered from the manufacturer, on advice that it was being built, at the time of shopping for conversion, or some later time, but ALWAYS in advance if going in service. With 40's and 50's data processing and communications capabilities, a railroad couldn't know within days or weeks, maybe months when a car was going to go into service. And there was the publication lead time. So, of necessity, a large number of cars was listed on a prospective basis.

At the other end of the life cycle, a car stayed in the ORER as long as there was any, however remote, prospect of it getting into revenue service.

The percentage of cars listed that were in active service could vary as a result of the level of acquisitions and removals as well as the management style of the railroad.




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


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Cyril and Lynn Durrenberger
<durrecj@...> wrote:

The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and
they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another
problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger
Hmmm... I was under the impression that after the initial ICC
valuation of the railroads, the law mandated that it be kept current.
So very likely the information is (or was) there, buried in the
archives, but one would have to start with the initial valuation and
then dig out each addition to and subtraction from that. Not an easy
task, and no telling if the updates are even available for study, if
they even still exist at all.

Then again, I seem to recall that it was this valuation process that
prompted railroads (at least the Soo Line) to implement the Authority
For Expenditure file system, so it is possible that this information
wasn't even reported, the ICC just mandated that it be tracked, and
the information be available in the RR's files if it was needed. That
means that the info now resides where each individual railroad kept
its archives, much of which is now lost.

Speaking of the Soo Line, I know the Mechanical Department at one time
maintained a card file with a discrete card for every single car on
the roster, on which items that could be classed as "betterments" were
noted. I have seen some of the cards. Unfortunately, the file itself
and most the cards are long gone.

Dennis


Availability of Car Information, was: ORER inaccuracy

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Dave Nelson wrote:
Here's what remains open (and why I haven't pushed forward): How does
car class relate to Acquisition (e.g., the New Date)? Builder?
Clearly one Car Class can have multiple Builders and multiple
Acquisition dates. And that information is usually tied to an
Original Car Series value...
These are exactly the kinds of issues I've wrestled with, in car
type after car type, decade after decade, in writing my SP freight car
volumes. Luckily enough SP records survive to make most class histories
findable and understandable.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
Tony,

I, for one, am grateful the SP records were available and you put the
information in your SP freight car books. I'm developing a (fairly
simple) spreadsheet of all the different SP/T&NO/AE/PE etc. box cars
by number series, original purchases matched to surviving in 1940 from
your books. I have the spreadsheet set up so I know what percentage
of the 1940 total of box cars each number series is, then I enter the
number of SP box cars I want for my collection of mostly unbuilt kits
and see how many of each car class I should have. In some cases there
aren't reasonably accurate models for cars that I should have, so I
select from car classes close in build date.

I then select valid in-service numbers from the January 1940 ORER on
CD I bought from Al Westerfield. I kept getting confused by the
variety of car specialties used in the pre-WWII AAR box cars, so I did
another spreadsheet to track that info and expanded it to include the
earlier cars, too.

Now I can easily decide which, and how many, kits I need, along with
being able to determine car numbers based both on which numbers were
still in service and which numbers were used for cars with specialties
that are available in HO scale.

Now if someone would come out with an accurate model of the Ureco Type
V geared hand brake with the Ureco U-498 hand wheel.

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA


Re: Freight car distribution

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

Bruce said
> My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict with
100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any other
data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the steam era
(based on the data sets).

I've already said that I agree that absent any better data the national proportion is a good starting point in that it gives better percentages than zero or 100 %. But, for the many reasons that I've stated, I think that adjusting that model with weighting factors related to proximity of the owning railroad is more realistic. Whether the weights sould be between 1 and 2 or 1 and 5 or some other ratio is a matter of judgement. But the random variations of the real world obviate the need for precision.

Looking at it from a practical perspective, visiting railroaders aren't likely to notice anything amiss with something approaching the national perecentages or reasonably weighted percentages, especially if modeling a rilroad in the midwest. But if the modeled location is a location like Florida or Maine or Washington, a nationally weighted fleet will look out of place to me.



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


Re: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Jack Burgess
 

No question of the feasibility of this kind of report for a
small railroad. What was the total number of cars on line Jack ?
In the case of the YV, it would have been easy to keep such a
record just from the single daily interchange report that had all
cars coming on the railroad for that day.

In contrast, consider a railroad such as the PRR or ATSF with
thousands of cars coming through hundreds of interchanges every
day. Consider the fact that all of the paper with that
information flowed into the system car accountant's office with
time lags of days to weeks. Then imagine the massive clerical
task to do the count. No computers around to help. Not even
photocopiers !

It would have been a huge expense to get information that would
have been too old to use for any kind of management decision making.
But wouldn't that information be needed every day to pay for per diem
charges?

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Cyril Durrenberger
 

Another source of general data on car fleets is the railroad reports to the state railroad commission. These typically have a list of the number of locomotives, passenger cars and freight cars listed by type. I have never been able to get these data to agree exactly with ORER data. This is for railroads that ran in one state. It could be a difference in the reporting times, etc. In most cases there is general agreement.

Cyril Durrenberger

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@mchsi.com> wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@... wrote:


In a message dated 8/19/2008 10:26:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rdkirkham@... writes:

I suppose if the ORER data was in a data base and one focused on
dropped
entries over time you would develop a starting point of cars where
something
happened (including re-builds, sale to other lines and
retirements). But
my impression from reading some of the e-mails that mention these
issues is
that cars could be more or less out of service for several years -
some to
return to service, others to be dismantled, etc.



Kirk:

I am in the process of doing this for the PRR. I began with the
ORER's
available from Al Westerfield and I am slowly adding other issues as
they become
available. Some surprising things are appearing but I need to
verify them
from other sources before any definitive statements can be made.
One of the
surprises is how many of the "missing" classes of cars actually
made it into
the ORER without any number of cars only to be dropped in the next
issue. This
would mean the classes were only canceled when they were already in
the
pipeline to begin rolling out of the shops not during the design
phase. The PRR
listed new cars without a quantity when they expected the cars to
be on the
roster before the next quarterly issue of the ORER but were not yet
in service.

You guys are trying to make the ORER into something it wasn't intended
to be; a complete roster of cars on the North American railroads. For
that you need to go into each railroad's own records, or possibly the
ICC valuation records.

The ORER was only intended to be a reference to look up the vital
specifics on a specific car, to see if it was suitable to fill an
empty car order. This presupposes that the car exists, and is on
someone's yard or station list. If the car was in storage, then nobody
would have any need to be looking it up, so "extra" listings for cars
temporarily out of service were not a problem. What would be a problem
is if the car was pulled from storage because it was finally repaired,
or the economy had picked up, or whatever. Same thing with new cars on
order from the builders; no sense having new cars if no one knows it,
so they needed to be listed in advance of their expected arrival.

Dennis


Re: ORER inaccuracy

Cyril Durrenberger
 

The ICC valuation records do not provide good roster information and they were done at a given date, usually prior to 1920. Another problem is that the same approach was not done for every railroad.

Cyril Durrenberger

Dennis Storzek <destorzek@mchsi.com> wrote:
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@... wrote:


In a message dated 8/19/2008 10:26:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
rdkirkham@... writes:

I suppose if the ORER data was in a data base and one focused on
dropped
entries over time you would develop a starting point of cars where
something
happened (including re-builds, sale to other lines and
retirements). But
my impression from reading some of the e-mails that mention these
issues is
that cars could be more or less out of service for several years -
some to
return to service, others to be dismantled, etc.



Kirk:

I am in the process of doing this for the PRR. I began with the
ORER's
available from Al Westerfield and I am slowly adding other issues as
they become
available. Some surprising things are appearing but I need to
verify them
from other sources before any definitive statements can be made.
One of the
surprises is how many of the "missing" classes of cars actually
made it into
the ORER without any number of cars only to be dropped in the next
issue. This
would mean the classes were only canceled when they were already in
the
pipeline to begin rolling out of the shops not during the design
phase. The PRR
listed new cars without a quantity when they expected the cars to
be on the
roster before the next quarterly issue of the ORER but were not yet
in service.

You guys are trying to make the ORER into something it wasn't intended
to be; a complete roster of cars on the North American railroads. For
that you need to go into each railroad's own records, or possibly the
ICC valuation records.

The ORER was only intended to be a reference to look up the vital
specifics on a specific car, to see if it was suitable to fill an
empty car order. This presupposes that the car exists, and is on
someone's yard or station list. If the car was in storage, then nobody
would have any need to be looking it up, so "extra" listings for cars
temporarily out of service were not a problem. What would be a problem
is if the car was pulled from storage because it was finally repaired,
or the economy had picked up, or whatever. Same thing with new cars on
order from the builders; no sense having new cars if no one knows it,
so they needed to be listed in advance of their expected arrival.

Dennis


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

rwitt_2000
 

Greg,

Potentially you are closer to the truth. I now recall that in the blue
print bundles for a specific class of B&O freight car they include all
the drawings for all the parts used in the car and that includes
drawings and specifications for all the wood parts. I have not seen a
drawing bundle for any flat car, but I have to assume the wood parts
would be specified and especially those necessary for the decking.

Bob Witt
Indianapolis, Indiana



Greg Martin wrote:

Bob and all,

I am sure that the Stores Department were given a cut list of the cars
types that they were currently building and those sizes were bundled and
shipped off to the Car Shops at the time of production. If the car was
cast as we know the F30a were, then minor adjustments were made on site.
It really wouldn't matter where you started if you knew where the odd
piece or two were to be added. I am sure the Stores Department would
make any serious corrections in calculations (measure twice, cut once).
I would bet that they were also pre-drilled?so they could be dropped in
like a puzzle, at?least that would?the most economical way to do it,
otherwise every car would be custom and that doesn't make much since...
But hey , it might have been?that way in union?work rules, who knows.

Greg Martin?


-----Original Message-----
From: rwitt_2000 rwitt_2000@...
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:00 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems
small







Bruce Smith wrote:
snip

I too have used scale lumber to build decks and I REALLY like the
way
they look. When I do that, I start at each end and work towards the
middle. With a few boards to go, you should test the fit of the
remaining boards, as you may need to sand down several to make them
fit. This small adjustment in several boards will look much better
than having a half board in the middle of the car.
Bruce,

You raise an interesting point and question "How did car builders
place
the decking on flat cars?" Did they start from the ends as you do or
from the middle. I have no idea. To save costs, I would suggest that
on
actual flat cars there would be an odd width board or two and that
would
be prototypical. There also is the type of flatcar design where the
top
of the body bolsters are flush with the decking so these cars have
smaller openings to fit the decking into creating the potential for
even
more odd width boards.

Bob Witt

114501 - 114520 of 189789