Date   

Re: F&C site

Ian Cranstone
 

On 18-Sep-08, at 6:19 AM, jerryglow2 wrote:
I think it might have something to do with the use of frames. On a PC
using Mozila/Firefox, I listed the source of the right side of the
page and appended the source URL to the base for their site. For
example
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreightListByRoadWithDescriptions.html
to view HO by roadname.

Someone on a Mac try this and report here.
Sorry Jerry, it doesn't make any difference whether I navigate to this page from the base URL or directly from the subURL you have given. I just can't get any further at this point with either Safari 3.1.2 or Firefox 3.0. I can't test Internet Explorer on this Mac as the newer Intel machines don't include it anymore (I keep meaning to get a copy from one of my older Macs for this computer), although any Mac version is now somewhat archaic.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@nakina.net
http://freightcars.nakina.net
http://siberians.nakina.net


F&C site was Re: Heavy Duty Flat

jerryglow2
 

I think it might have something to do with the use of frames. On a PC
using Mozila/Firefox, I listed the source of the right side of the
page and appended the source URL to the base for their site. For
example
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreightListByRoadWithDescriptions.html
to view HO by roadname.

Someone on a Mac try this and report here.

Jerry Glow


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Adam & Laura Eyring" <eyrings06@...>
wrote:

An alternative is to find a distributor site with supposedly the
entire
FandC catalog listed (many pictures are missing, though). Here are
a couple:
http://www.blueridgehobbies.com/Domestic/FunaroAndCamerlengo/FunaroAnd
Camerlengo-Main.asp

http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/u_fun.htm

AME


Re: Heavy Duty Flat

Adam & Laura Eyring <eyrings06@...>
 

An alternative is to find a distributor site with supposedly the entire FandC catalog listed (many pictures are missing, though). Here are a couple:
http://www.blueridgehobbies.com/Domestic/FunaroAndCamerlengo/FunaroAndCamerlengo-Main.asp

http://www.hobbylinc.com/prods/u_fun.htm

AME

----- Original Message -----
From: "pierreoliver2003" <pierre.oliver@sympatico.ca>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 6:36 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Heavy Duty Flat


This is an old problem with their website. You can get to the home
page, but unless you're using Explorer, you can't get inside and look
at the individual models. It's been like this from day one.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Dermody <ddermody@...> wrote:

Brian,

Can't explain what your problem is, but using Firefox 3 on a MacBook
Pro, the site comes up fine.

Dick

On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

What scale? F&C already does a resin kit for these!

BTW, F&C's website STILL refuses to work on my Mac, either in Safari
or
Firefox. That's just lame.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni


Re: Heavy Duty Flat

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

On my PC/Explorer I can expand the road name links to individual kit listings, and expand those to give details and a photo. If it works for me it may also work for him. It's difficult to diagnose a problem that doesn't happen to you. . .

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Smith

As we have been over multiple times in the past, the F&C home page
works fine, the problem is that when you try to view, say "HO Freight
Cars", you get a list of roadnames that then goes nowhere, or if you
select the kit number option, the same thing. Even Explorer cannot
seem to get beyond this on the Mac... and I'm pretty sure it doesn't
work on my PC laptop either. I've complained to Steve about this
flaw multiple times, but it has obviously not been fixed.


Re: Early train length laws

Larry Jackman <Ljack70117@...>
 

They had these laws in several states. The train crews had their hand in it. The shorter the trains the more train would have to be run and more trainman would be working. One state had a law you could have so many cars with a 5 man crew. Then as you added cars you had to add extra crew members.
On the Kansas Pacific owned by The Un Pac, the steepest grad between KC and Ogden was between Salina and Hayes Ks. THe engine crews got a rule that the RR could not put more tonnage on a train that one engine could pullover the division. They could use a helper on the main grade. So the Un Pac just killed the Kansas division. (Kansas Pacific). They built the Menoken cut off to Marysville and all traffic from from Kansas for Denver and west went up the cutoff to the main line and the Kansas trackage became a branch line.
Thank you
Larry Jackman
ljack70117@comcast.net

On Sep 17, 2008, at 1:31 PM, George A. Walls wrote:

Gary,
I think it probably had more to do with economics then any thing
else. The big voter turnout was from Cochise Couunty, which had large
mining interests, a lot of railroads. Shorter trains means more money
from taxes, expenses, more crews, etc:.
Would like to find out more about the reasons behind the law but
haven't had a lot of success since I no longer live in AZ.

Mike, makes his own laws. Just like UP. Operate in their own little
world. hehehe Wonder if we can find N&W hoppers on the Santa Fe in AZ?

George A Walls





--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote:

Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state
constitution and its not something the usual politically connected
interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't
think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good
test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting
committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision.
The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be
camouflage.
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the
AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've
not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads
sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by
Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information
on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are
great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents"
steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving
additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone
there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If
you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws,
there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and
the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have
any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains,
or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because
they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then
coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona
70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer
trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and
Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power
to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps,
you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse













------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Early train length laws

water.kresse@...
 

I've pictures of C&O gondolas in Los Angeles in the 1950s.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "George A. Walls" <atsf1226@yahoo.com>
Gary,
I think it probably had more to do with economics then any thing
else. The big voter turnout was from Cochise Couunty, which had large
mining interests, a lot of railroads. Shorter trains means more money
from taxes, expenses, more crews, etc:.
Would like to find out more about the reasons behind the law but
haven't had a lot of success since I no longer live in AZ.

Mike, makes his own laws. Just like UP. Operate in their own little
world. hehehe Wonder if we can find N&W hoppers on the Santa Fe in AZ?

George A Walls

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote:

Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state
constitution and its not something the usual politically connected
interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't
think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good
test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting
committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision.
The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be
camouflage.
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the
AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've
not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads
sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by
Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information
on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are
great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents"
steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving
additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone
there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If
you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws,
there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and
the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have
any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains,
or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because
they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then
coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona
70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer
trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and
Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power
to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps,
you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse



















Re: Early train length laws

ATSF1226
 

Gary,
I think it probably had more to do with economics then any thing
else. The big voter turnout was from Cochise Couunty, which had large
mining interests, a lot of railroads. Shorter trains means more money
from taxes, expenses, more crews, etc:.
Would like to find out more about the reasons behind the law but
haven't had a lot of success since I no longer live in AZ.

Mike, makes his own laws. Just like UP. Operate in their own little
world. hehehe Wonder if we can find N&W hoppers on the Santa Fe in AZ?

George A Walls





--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...> wrote:

Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state
constitution and its not something the usual politically connected
interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't
think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good
test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting
committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision.
The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be
camouflage.
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...


----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the
AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've
not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads
sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by
Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information
on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are
great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents"
steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving
additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone
there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If
you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws,
there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and
the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have
any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains,
or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because
they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then
coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona
70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer
trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and
Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power
to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps,
you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

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

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

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

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






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





Re: Early train length laws

water.kresse@...
 

Gary,

I agree with you again. Apparently they had hearing in Washington, DC, May 1916, which the N&W folks participated in. That would be as the War in Europe was just unfolding and the US was being requested to supply our allies with war materials.

It is the 50-car limit being proposed to Virginia State General Assembly was exactly half of the railroad management stated 100-car yard and passing siding track length improvements being reported on in their annual reports at the time.

Al

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net>
Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage.
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@...>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse















Re: Early train length laws

gary laakso
 

Its very odd to have a train length provision in a state constitution and its not something the usual politically connected interests want. The question is then "who benefits" and i don't think its the local coupler sales guy. Smell test remains a good test. My money says a couple of union members were on the drafting committee and they did some trades to get support for the provision. The post convention rationalizations by politicians tend to be camouflage.
Does the law apply to Mike Brock's layout?

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: George A. Walls
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 12:44:55 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@...>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse















Re: Early train length laws

ATSF1226
 

This law was put in place by the people of AZ when developing the AZ
State Constitution in 1912 and voted on by the people of AZ. I've not
seen any reference to union involment. Santa Fe and SP railroads sued
the state of AZ in 1924 to get it overturned. Didn't work. Law was
set aside in 1942 because of WW2 and then later thrown out by Federal
Supreme Court in 1945, as was mentioned earlier. Some information on
this subject appears in David Myrick's book " Railroads of Arizona,
Vol 4, pg 192-194"

Several states have their own agencies that oversee railroad
operations in their states and have been sucessful in maintaining
those laws above what union or railroad wants.

George A Walls



Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are great "original
sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering
us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving additional
safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there,
including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union
lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you
look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there
is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some
mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the
briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any
pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or
even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer
trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the
State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the
ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of
trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays
(1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before
Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or
even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they
might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News
(1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky)
aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without
references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@...>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler
strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or
overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same
thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@...

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-
car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize
coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal
traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater?
Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same
time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled
cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these
railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to
pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains
longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car
tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early
20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@...>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a
Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the
Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to
mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP
won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a
driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

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





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

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




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


Re: Early train length laws

water.kresse@...
 

Gary,

Old timer guidance and historical recollections are great "original sources" in my book. If it was not for "old timer sargents" steering us straight we wouldn't have servived in the war zones either.

The final briefs are rather pure: statistically proving additional safety risks vs. impeding free trade across the states.

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net>
I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse


Re: GS gon kits (was: How long would there be PRR gons in pre-circle keystone paint?)

Dean Payne
 

Andy,
I thought the F&C gon was a flat kit (or kits, they come 2 in a
package). Maybe this is a newer version of the same kit. The
original ones didn't have any detail on the interiors of the side. I
think this would be a better approach than using the Bowser kit and
Stan Rydarowicz's resin ends (unless you already own the Bowser kit).
Dean Payne

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Miller" <aslmmiller@...> wrote:

F&C makes a one-piece body resin kit for the GS gons with the brake
wheel on the "modern" side (The Bowser is correct for very early cars
before the standardization of safety appliances). The cost is
comparable to the Bowser kit and the detail can be much better.

regards,

Andy Miller
----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Payne
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:18 PM
Subject: [STMFC] How long would there be PRR gons in pre-circle
keystone paint?


. . .

I know, the brake wheel is on the wrong side, Nehrich says it's a
pain
to fix.

Dean Payne


Recent Activity
a.. 5New Members
Visit Your Group
Health Zone
Look your best!

Groups to help you

look & feel great.

Yahoo! News
Get it all here

Breaking news to

entertainment news

Share Photos
Put your favorite

photos and

more online.
.


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


Re: Early train length laws

gary laakso
 

I spent 20 years in the ESPEE legal department and everyone there, including the olde timers when i was a pup, told me it was union lobbying for more work not coupler strength that was involved. If you look at class 1 railroad employment and the timing of the laws, there is a striking (no pun intended) correlation. There ought to be some mention of the views of the parties in the Supreme Court case and the briefs of the parties.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 10:36:30 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse


Re: Early train length laws

water.kresse@...
 

Gary,

First, I don't doubt your very logical conclusion. Do you have any pre-WWI "original source" documentation to back that up? . . . or even a general book on railroad history during those times? Longer trains would mean less train crews per ton moved. Looking at the State of Virginia Laws and Codes on the internet I find that the ministers were more influential in trying to ban movements of trains "not completely filled" with interstate commerce on Sundays (1908), or banning train crews from not being brought home before Sunday services (1890s), or prohibiting sales of liquor on trains, or even prohibiting passenger trains to pull reefers . . . because they might carry German-style beer from Cincinnatti down to Newport News (1890s). Plus, there were the Jim Crow laws.

Us Northerners up here in Michigan (born in Ashland, Kentucky) aren't suppose to say anything about Southern Culture without references to back it up.

Thanks,

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "gary laakso" <vasa0vasa@earthlink.net>
The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse


Re: Early train length laws

gary laakso
 

The state laws had much more to do wth union politics then coupler strength. The laws were desiged to maximize union employment and or overtime. The unions were pushing for federal laws to do the same thing.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From:
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 9/17/2008 9:32:35 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws


Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse


Re: Early train length laws

water.kresse@...
 

Thanks for finding support material relative to the 1912 Arizona 70-car freight train length limit. Rationale appears to be to minimize coupler failures resulting from higher slack-loads from longer trains?

My question is why would this affect C&O, N&W, and Virginian coal traffic between Kentucky, Ohio, WV, and Virginia . . . and Tidewater? Were other states considering maximum train length laws at the same time? Ohio seemed to be progressive in mandating 24-ft, 8-wheeled cabooses on interchange service circa 1914. it seems that these railroads at that time had enough problems just finding loco power to pull loaded coal trains up their grades . . much less making trains longer than 70-cars (even though they were going towards 100-car tracks in their coal classification yard improvements in the early 20s).

Al Kresse

-------------- Original message --------------
From: "James F. Brewer" <jfbrewer@comcast.net>
I believe this law was the basis for litigation that led to a Supreme Court decision declaring it to be a violation of the Interstate Commerce Act and therefore, unconstitutional.

Jim Brewer
Glenwood MD

----- Original Message -----
From: al_brown03
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 5:12 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Early train length laws

-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al.kresse" <water.kresse@...> wrote:

Folks,

Maybe this a new subject?

Do we have any information on State Legist's attempting to mandate
maximum number of freight cars allowed per train?
Yes. Arizona had a law limiting freight trains to 70 cars and
passenger trains to 14; in the forties the SP tested it, and SP won.
The law dated to 1912; I don't know how consistently it'd been
enforced.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0325_0761_ZO.h
tml

(Found this by googling "train length law". If the link wraps, you
may need to type in the last few characters.)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


Andrew Dow's great N&W Coal Car book refers to that being a driving
reason for building 120-ton and 90-ton "Battleship Gons" in the
late teens and early twenties. Do we have copies of specific
proposed rules?

Were there Federal proposes also?

Al Kresse


Re: Heavy Duty Flat

Bruce Smith
 

Dick,

As we have been over multiple times in the past, the F&C home page works fine, the problem is that when you try to view, say "HO Freight Cars", you get a list of roadnames that then goes nowhere, or if you select the kit number option, the same thing. Even Explorer cannot seem to get beyond this on the Mac... and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on my PC laptop either. I've complained to Steve about this flaw multiple times, but it has obviously not been fixed.

Brian - Rich was talking about O scale - see http:// www.richyodermodels.com/

Regards
Bruce

Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:45 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:

Brian,

Can't explain what your problem is, but using Firefox 3 on a MacBook
Pro, the site comes up fine.

Dick

On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

What scale? F&C already does a resin kit for these!

BTW, F&C's website STILL refuses to work on my Mac, either in Safari
or
Firefox. That's just lame.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni

------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links



Re: Heavy Duty Flat

jerryglow2
 

In Mozilla Firefox on a PC, I viewed the site then called up the
source and did a search for what I wanted. I copied that reference
and pasted it to the base URL and got the page. A little cluggy and
work but it works.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "pierreoliver2003" <pierre.oliver@...>
wrote:

This is an old problem with their website. You can get to the home
page, but unless you're using Explorer, you can't get inside and
look
at the individual models. It's been like this from day one.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Dermody <ddermody@> wrote:

Brian,

Can't explain what your problem is, but using Firefox 3 on a
MacBook
Pro, the site comes up fine.

Dick

On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

What scale? F&C already does a resin kit for these!

BTW, F&C's website STILL refuses to work on my Mac, either in
Safari
or
Firefox. That's just lame.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni


Re: Heavy Duty Flat

pierreoliver2003 <pierre.oliver@...>
 

This is an old problem with their website. You can get to the home
page, but unless you're using Explorer, you can't get inside and look
at the individual models. It's been like this from day one.
Pierre Oliver

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Dermody <ddermody@...> wrote:

Brian,

Can't explain what your problem is, but using Firefox 3 on a MacBook
Pro, the site comes up fine.

Dick

On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:52 PM, Brian Paul Ehni wrote:

What scale? F&C already does a resin kit for these!

BTW, F&C's website STILL refuses to work on my Mac, either in Safari
or
Firefox. That's just lame.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni


Terrell Cotton Oil Co

matt
 

Hi Guys,

Does anyone have any information regarding the Terrell Cotton Oil
Company and their tanks cars?

Their reporting marks, history, transport of what and why etc

thanks for your help

MATT

111281 - 111300 of 187144