Date   

Re: Freight car Distribution

al_brown03
 

Just for the record, what exceptions are expected? Not home-road cars: they're excluded. Not assigned-service cars: they're excluded too, right? Each time this topic comes up, I keep thinking it's hard to tell what cars were in assigned service, even from wheel reports; one needs to know specific traffic patterns. The remaining exceptions would seem to be friendly connections.

I was very interested in some data presented at Cocoa Beach a few years back by Larry Kline, who has studied a Western Maryland main line. The WM is intertwined with the much larger B&O; the rival "proximity" hypothesis predicts that the WM would be flooded with B&O cars. IIRC, it isn't.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote:

Richard and all,

You want more primary data? Look no farther than Larry Osterrich's efforts with (more UP) conductor's books. You also cited the Bieber interchange book, which was not analyed the last time we had this discussion. Finally, there is Armand's Rutland data, which, to my knowledge, has not been published.

You also asked why we are re-hashing this. It is simply because Armand wants to. He has primary data, so I assume (!) that he has discovered something therein that conflicts with the model.
I also note that your primary data (your personal observations) clearly show deviation from the model. It is not clear to me if the model can be improved to account for your primary data or not.


Hypothesis: The G-N model matches the data, disregarding exceptions. The magnitude of the exceptions, for most railroads, does not affect more than a handful (e.g. five) of roadnames.

Now I need to find a way to test the hypothesis.

Regards,

-Jeff




From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:13 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution


I agree with Ben and others who think the Gilbert-Nelson theory is
the best approximation we have at present. More data might indeed
give us different results, but where do we find the data?

However.... It's often the case that specialized shipments on a
particular line skewed the numbers, and sometimes skewed them a whole
lot. So modelers need to be mindful of the traffic that ran on the
particular section of railroad they're modeling, and not just
slavishly follow the G-N numbers. Let me cite a couple of examples.

In traffic handed off between the GN and WP at Bieber, CA on the high
line in the late 1940s, there are many more double door box cars with
auto racks (a lot of them Santa Fe cars) than the G-N theory would
account for. The reason for that isn't far to seek; many (perhaps
most) new motor vehicles sold in the Pacific Northwest were built at
satellite assembly plants in Southern and Central California and
shipped north in automobile box cars. Many of these appear to have
been in assigned service, judging from the frequency with which the
same cars turned up repeatedly either going (loaded) or returning
(empty) in the Bieber interchange book. The Santa Fe, on which much
of that traffic originated, shipped it via the WP-GN whenever
possible, rather than turning it over to arch-rival Southern Pacific.

When I was a youth in Southern California watching Santa Fe trains
come into the Los Angeles area from the east, I thought the Akron,
Canton & Youngstown had to be a sizable railroad, to judge from the
number of AC&Y box cars I saw. It wasn't until much later that I
discovered how small the AC&Y's freight car fleet was, and figured
out that the reason I kept seeing their cars in Los Angeles was that
they were carrying tires from the Ohio tire manufacturers served by
the AC&Y to the auto assembly plants in the LA area. Similarly, I
saw more New Haven box cars in Santa Fe trains than the G-N theory
would lead one to expect, because the New Haven served Pratt &
Whitney, whose aircraft engines and parts were at that time shipped
in a steady stream to the many aircraft manufacturers and military
aviation installations in Southern California.

If you're trying to build a plausible model freight car fleet to run
on a particular line at a particular time - which is what I assume
most STMFC members are doing - generalizations about the national
freight car fleet as a whole are certainly useful, but a whole lot of
variables might result in certain cars being present in larger
numbers than the national average and others never, or hardly ever,
appearing there. It's not clear to me why we have to keep rehashing
this. Or why, yet again, we'll have someone respond, inevitably, to
the discussion by saying "it's my model railroad and I'll run
whatever cars I damn please."

Richard Hendrickson

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



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


Re: CINCINNATI-INDIANAPOLIS & WESTERN RAILROAD

rfederle@...
 

Hello Joel,

This title caught my eye. I am originally from Hamilton Ohio. The CI&W branched off the the CH&D there and headed west to Indianapolis as you probably already know. I cant help much for the info you seek but I will be following this topic pretty close.

The Depot in Hamilton still stands and I having a custom model done of it. Maybe produce kits too, not sure yet. It was originally two seperate building, one being the CI&W and the othe, a two story building, being the CH&D. After the B&O acquisition the two buidings had the open air portion between the two buildings closed in to form a single structure. It hasn't really changed much, outwardly, from what it was.

Anyway, thanks Joel for posting the inquiry. I will be interested to see where it goes and what I can learn as well.

Robert Federle
New Iberia, Louisiana

---- brooklynbus <mec-bml@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

GENTLEMAN:Anyone on the list having any data on this railroad and its freight cars(think the B&O took over early in the 1920's)interested in the B&O/CI&W operations in Springfield IL.
Thanks
Joel Norman


Re: Freight car Distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
Jeff,I am merely trying to expand on the G/N hypothesis.There are many variations that should be considered.Regional differences should be looked at and thoroughly discussed,seasonal variations,traffic patterns. etc.. . . There is much information that has yet to surface
Well, sure, let's have more data. And variations would be good to know about. BUT: I don't see many people signing up to do analysis, nor do there appear to be vast stores of ideal data out there.

I am suggesting that one size does not fit all.There are things like company reports regarding car loadings.
Most carloading data do not include the car into which the load was put, so cannot help us here.

.I do not believe in the stance ,"Don't confuse me with facts,my mind is already made up".
No one is saying that, Armand. What some of us ARE saying, if I may be so bold as to summarize, is this: "The G-N hypothesis looks fairly solid and is backed by a lot of data. It will take comparably good and comparably numerous data to consider rejecting it."

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: Fw: Sample

Dave Nelson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:
Armand, I understand.

But consider: we do not model months or years at a time. We model
individual freight trains of 20-40 cars (if we're lucky to have a
layout that can handle it). Now try to run that Rutland "month" of 60
or 120 freight trains over your layout. What is the composition of
those trains? Is each train perfectly proportioned according to your
prototype data? Are the cars in those trains perfectly representative
of the actual cars in the prototype trains? I am pretty sure, no
matter how good a modeler you are, that the answer to both of those
questions cannot be YES. And the most likely answer to both is NO.

But by all means, compile your numbers and let's see how the
percentages break down compared to national fleet totals. I can see
immediately from your numbers that PRR and NYC are very close, and
both are much larger than ATSF, MILW, CNW, etc -- exactly what G-N
predicts.


As an aside I would like to note that with railroad simulators on a PC,
rather than model railroad layouts, it is possible to run trains of 50, 60,
80, 100+ freight cars and to have multiple such trains pass by in view such
that a session that shows 500-1000 cars is common.

My point is this: How one uses the hypothesis will vary by personal
interest. That such personal interests vary from small branchline O gauge
layouts on the one hand to computer simulated divisions (plural) on the
other means the *application* of the hypothesis will also vary greatly.
That doesn't have any effect on the hypothesis... Only it's utility to this
or that person. Were Tim still with us, I am certain he'd agree with this
fully.

Dave Nelson


Re: Freight car Distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Aley, Jeff A wrote:
Hypothesis: The G-N model matches the data, disregarding exceptions. The magnitude of the exceptions, for most railroads, does not affect more than a handful (e.g. five) of roadnames.
I think both Gilbert and Nelson felt, back when presenting their results, that the hypothesis was going to work best for mainline trains, especially with bridge traffic. That it cannot work on many branches was readily admitted at the time, but continues to make some folks think they have found a BIG EXCEPTION. Yes, of course a branch can easily be an exception. I was recently discussing a good example of the genre, SP's Kentucky House branch, which had a huge cement plant at the end of it. Guess what kind of traffic dominated the branch?
Tim O'C. has said it very well: the G-N approach only gives us the OVERALL answer to freight car distribution. It cannot describe, and certainly Gilbert and Nelson never claimed otherwise, an individual train or a day's worth of trains.

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: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

Ed Hawkins
 

On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

As I said Kadee probably chose a 3-spring pack because it is more
obvious to modelers that that truck is different from their other
trucks -- ya know, Marketing 101. :-)
Tim,
Perhaps Sam Clarke of Kadee will provide a better explanation, but I've
spoken to Sam about their 70-ton Barber plain-bearing truck (#566) with
3 outboard springs. The truck is accurate for a specific 50' PS-1 box
car (built ca. early 1960s) that Kadee has plans to produce. I made a
search of other prototype cars having trucks of similar appearance, and
about all I could find were a few series of Greenville gondola cars
(Life-Like model). That's not to say my search was exhaustive, but
rather I limited my search to prototype cars in which reasonably
accurate models exist. It's certainly possible I've missed some.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Freight car Distribution

Dave Nelson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tim's opinion, far below, is spot on.


As a reminder, when I first put together this hypothesis, it sprang from
combining the ORER -- the number of ordinary boxcars -- to the ICC September
1 survey of home cars on home roads. Taking those two facts you have a
pretty good estimate of what was roaming the rails -- not perfectly accurate
because the ORER issn't perfectly accurate. The question was where were
they roaming?

Only wheel reports, yard jumbos, and detailed interchange reports could
answer that question, and obviously, the larger and more geographically
diverse the sample, the better.

Tim and I transcribed many thousand of lines from wheel reports... Car
initials, number, car type, contents, pickup and destinations locations,
train number and locomotive number. Experience taught the need to add a few
more colums prefixed by "as-written" because 50-70 year-old scribbles are
often hard to read and what conclusion you draw at the start is often not
the same was what you think 500 entries later. With these extra columns you
can go back and these for reconsideration. So call it 9 values to record
per car.

With that in hand we started to compare the observed to the expected. It
wasn't perfect. But it was remarkably close so long as the proper if,
and's, and buts were observed: post war, major trunk lines, free rolling
boxcars, no home road cars included, and expected Canadian cars adjusted to
10% of their roster to relect that only 10% of Canadian car loadings were
sent south of the border.

Might not work for Vermont... But then, should Canadian cars be excluded as
home road? I dunno. Might not work for some branchline in Florida either.
And so on. But then lets remember the expected is national, not regional.
Which is also to say that when regional observations come darn close to
matching the national expected, there might just be something to this
hypothesis.

Anyway, I have no problems with folks questioning the hypothesis... It is
only a hypothesis after all, and I should/will not use the word theory.
More and larger smaples from would certain be most useful. Which leads on
to another issue: I have quite a few more wheel reports on hand. Some
hardcopy, some scanned. 25-35 trains per, maybe 50-60 cars per train (not
all boxcars) maybe less, works out to having to do 2 or 3 books from ther
same location to get a sample large enough to study. That's 3000 to 4000
lines of data times ~9 data elements, somewhere beterrn 27,000 and 36,000
different values. Atr least excel helps copy & paste common values so the
entire 130,000 - 180,000 characters don't have to be typed. Just most of
them. In my expereince of doing this work I found it rather helpful to be
in the middle of a major depression episode as it was a task demanding a
level of involvement in which I could still function. YMMV.

Anyone ready to sign up for that? You know, transcribe all the way to the
end... Almost 200,000 letters and numbers, rather than just pulling my leg
for some copies to check out?

I'd be delighted to show you the way and in exchange for the finished
transcriptions I'll join the records to my 1950 ORER database (that's
another 10,000 lines, each having dozens of values) and return them to you
with each row extended by ORER data. Just drop me an e-mail. And for the
rest of you, please understand why I havn't transcribed more that I already
have.

Dave Nelson

Marge, imagine that you had the complete record of every freight
train on the Union Pacific over Sherman Hill for the entire year of
1953. And suppose that the total record of say, 18,000 freight trains
and 1,500,000 freight cars demonstrated perfect correspondence with
the G-N box car distribution theory of a perfectly balanced
percentage of box cars according to national fleet totals -- when
taken all together over 365 days. But when you examine each of the
365 days, suppose you notice a WIDE variation from the overall G-N
idea. Some days one finds huge numbers of SP box cars. On other days
there's an outsize number of NP box cars, or SAL box cars, or SFRD
reefers, or .... whatever.

What, in the end, has been proved? My point is that if you model a
major mainline railroad in the US, and even if you know for a fact
what every train on that railroad carried for a whole year, you will
be hard pressed to replicate it on a model railroad. No matter which
day of that year you choose to replicate. But suppose you succeed --

Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
"Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"

And here's the fun part -- even though it looks wrong to visitors, in
fact, you'd know that your model is correct AND G-N is correct!

Tim "epistemologically challenged" O'Connor


Re: Freight car slides

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Al Kresset wrote:
My instructor at the local community college (Intro To PhotoShop and Digitizing) would deduct you 5-10 points on every project for not learning/using the pre-scan software (he made you print the SilverFast report and hand it in with the final project product).
Silverfast is among the most highly regarded scanner applications. But a number of authorities (OTHER THAN your instructor) continue to advise doing no more in the scanner software than absolutely necessary (as Tim said, you do need to set film type, etc. when scanning). I'd urge consultation of books like "Real World Photoshop" and "Real World Scanning and Halftones" or the ongoing series of "Missing Manuals" on Photoshop, published by O'Reilly.
That said, I commend your instructor for making sure you learn the capabilities of all the software you work with.

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


CINCINNATI-INDIANAPOLIS & WESTERN RAILROAD

brooklynbus <mec-bml@...>
 

GENTLEMAN:Anyone on the list having any data on this railroad and its freight cars(think the B&O took over early in the 1920's)interested in the B&O/CI&W operations in Springfield IL.
Thanks
Joel Norman


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

Tim O'Connor
 

Yes, all true Brian. But model trucks are notoriously inaccurate.
I suspect that across the spectrum of HO scale trucks that you will
find journal box sizes all over the map, and will find very little
correspondence with nominal truck capacity.

As I said Kadee probably chose a 3-spring pack because it is more
obvious to modelers that that truck is different from their other
trucks -- ya know, Marketing 101. :-)

Tim O'Connor

The real difference between a 50 ton and a 70 ton truck is the
size of the journals (and usually the wheelbase as well) and it
is only a matter of 1/2" (journal diameter)!!

Tim O'Connor
True, but a little misleading. Yes, journals (the axle ends machined to dimension) on 50-ton trucks are 5-1/2" diameter X 10" length, compared to 70-ton trucks at 6" X 11".

However, those journals sit inside the journal boxes and can't be seen. Outside width at the face of a 50-ton truck's journal box is 8-3/4" versus a 70-ton's 9-3/4". A 1 inch difference, or about 11% bigger.

Also, bolster width at the sideframe increases from 13" (50-ton) to 17" (70-ton).

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV


Re: Fw: Sample

Tim O'Connor
 

Armand, I understand.

But consider: we do not model months or years at a time. We model individual
freight trains of 20-40 cars (if we're lucky to have a layout that can handle
it). Now try to run that Rutland "month" of 60 or 120 freight trains over your
layout. What is the composition of those trains? Is each train perfectly
proportioned according to your prototype data? Are the cars in those trains
perfectly representative of the actual cars in the prototype trains? I am
pretty sure, no matter how good a modeler you are, that the answer to both
of those questions cannot be YES. And the most likely answer to both is NO.

But by all means, compile your numbers and let's see how the percentages
break down compared to national fleet totals. I can see immediately from
your numbers that PRR and NYC are very close, and both are much larger than
ATSF, MILW, CNW, etc -- exactly what G-N predicts.

Tim O'Connor

Tim,not to belabor the point,but here is a one month sample of a Rutland train of some of 1734 cars.....Box cars only : CN 125,NYC 111,PRR 86, ATSF 41 ,CP 39,Milw 35 ,CNW 34 ,IC 31, B&O 31.This data is fairly consistent month to month.Admittedly the Rutland was a very minor force on the national scene,but begs the issue to more closely examine other regional carriers.Armand


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

brianleppert@att.net
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

The real difference between a 50 ton and a 70 ton truck is the
size of the journals (and usually the wheelbase as well) and it
is only a matter of 1/2" (journal diameter)!!

Tim O'Connor
True, but a little misleading. Yes, journals (the axle ends machined to dimension) on 50-ton trucks are 5-1/2" diameter X 10" length, compared to 70-ton trucks at 6" X 11".

However, those journals sit inside the journal boxes and can't be seen. Outside width at the face of a 50-ton truck's journal box is 8-3/4" versus a 70-ton's 9-3/4". A 1 inch difference, or about 11% bigger.

Also, bolster width at the sideframe increases from 13" (50-ton) to 17" (70-ton).

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
Carson City, NV


Re: Freight car Distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Marge, imagine that you had the complete record of every freight
train on the Union Pacific over Sherman Hill for the entire year
of 1953. And suppose that the total record of say, 18,000 freight
trains and 1,500,000 freight cars demonstrated perfect correspondence
with the G-N box car distribution theory of a perfectly balanced
percentage of box cars according to national fleet totals -- when
taken all together over 365 days. But when you examine each of the
365 days, suppose you notice a WIDE variation from the overall G-N
idea. Some days one finds huge numbers of SP box cars. On other
days there's an outsize number of NP box cars, or SAL box cars, or
SFRD reefers, or .... whatever.

What, in the end, has been proved? My point is that if you model a
major mainline railroad in the US, and even if you know for a fact
what every train on that railroad carried for a whole year, you will
be hard pressed to replicate it on a model railroad. No matter which
day of that year you choose to replicate. But suppose you succeed --

Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
"Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"

And here's the fun part -- even though it looks wrong to visitors,
in fact, you'd know that your model is correct AND G-N is correct!

Tim "epistemologically challenged" O'Connor

Well, until someone finds analyses and presents that information, any
answer is going to be purely speculative and probably not very
helpful.

I think Tim Gilbert would have been among the first to agree that this
model was not the final word, but that it was the best model he could
find that agreed with the data theat he had available No one else has
yet dealt with the subject in the same rigorous way.

A bigger sample might tell us some things that support the G-N
theories and some that do not - we are after all dealing with
statistics, which means that there will be plenty of real life
variations from the theoretical model. Until further records are
unearthed and the analysis is done, the model we have is likely to
remain the best available for some time.

However any larger sample needs to be found before it can be analysed.
If anyone can add meanigful data - that is to say conductors' books
from other places and other railroads, then that would certainly help
refine the model.

Is it worth reworking the numbers hased on one additional wheel report
from one train? Probaly not, but if anyone can add a meaningful amount
of new data the same methods can be applied and new conculsians drawn
or old ones strengthened

Regards

Marge Ynaverra
Personal freight car statistician to Mr Bridgeman-Sutton


Re: Freight car slides

Tim O'Connor
 

I think Tony's point about PhotoShop vs scanner software is that he
does not use the scanner software to EDIT his images. All scanners and
their low level software introduce some skew to the scanned image, so
it's best to use that software to minimize the skew. Also, PhotoShop
can't correct half-tone (newspaper/magazine) images but the scanner
software can. Also the scanner software is usually needed to pull
details out of shadows, correct for different types of film (the
scanner I used had a library of slide/negative film profiles). But
for general editing, color correction, sharpening, scratch removal,
etc I think PhotoShop (or similar software) is best.

Tim O'Connor

My instructor at the local community college (Intro To PhotoShop and Digitizing) would deduct you 5-10 points on every project for not learning/using the pre-scan software (he made you print the SilverFast report and hand it in with the final project product).� He claimed that Adobe gets the instructors together regionally yearly and gives them foundation guidelines for scanning, layout class work, etc.� Yes, there were debateds about that in and after the classes.� You tend to use what you are use to.�
One part of the class goals was to learn the capabilities of the latest version of� SilverFast.

Al Kresse


Re: Freight car Distribution

Armand Premo
 

Jeff,I am merely trying to expand on the G/N hypothesis.There are many variations that should be considered.Regional differences should be looked at and thoroughly discussed,seasonal variations,traffic patterns. etc.I am suggesting that one size does not fit all.There are things like company reports regarding car loadings.There is much information that has yet to surface.I do not believe in the stance ,"Don't confuse me with facts,my mind is already made up".As each bit of data surfaces it helps us all to better understand a very complex operation.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Aley, Jeff A
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 11:41 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution



Armand,

It is not heresy to challenge the Gilbert-Nelson theory.

Of course the usual STMFC rules apply (no personal attacks, etc.).

Regards,

-Jeff Aley
Deputy Moderator, STMFC

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of A. Premo
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:52 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution

I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study to just box cars the results could be much different. Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Carey
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution

Rmand P wrote:
>but some roads have been under represented.

Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey



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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 18:32:00










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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00


Re: Freight car Distribution

Aley, Jeff A
 

Richard and all,

You want more primary data? Look no farther than Larry Osterrich's efforts with (more UP) conductor's books. You also cited the Bieber interchange book, which was not analyed the last time we had this discussion. Finally, there is Armand's Rutland data, which, to my knowledge, has not been published.

You also asked why we are re-hashing this. It is simply because Armand wants to. He has primary data, so I assume (!) that he has discovered something therein that conflicts with the model.
I also note that your primary data (your personal observations) clearly show deviation from the model. It is not clear to me if the model can be improved to account for your primary data or not.


Hypothesis: The G-N model matches the data, disregarding exceptions. The magnitude of the exceptions, for most railroads, does not affect more than a handful (e.g. five) of roadnames.

Now I need to find a way to test the hypothesis.

Regards,

-Jeff




From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:13 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution


I agree with Ben and others who think the Gilbert-Nelson theory is
the best approximation we have at present. More data might indeed
give us different results, but where do we find the data?

However.... It's often the case that specialized shipments on a
particular line skewed the numbers, and sometimes skewed them a whole
lot. So modelers need to be mindful of the traffic that ran on the
particular section of railroad they're modeling, and not just
slavishly follow the G-N numbers. Let me cite a couple of examples.

In traffic handed off between the GN and WP at Bieber, CA on the high
line in the late 1940s, there are many more double door box cars with
auto racks (a lot of them Santa Fe cars) than the G-N theory would
account for. The reason for that isn't far to seek; many (perhaps
most) new motor vehicles sold in the Pacific Northwest were built at
satellite assembly plants in Southern and Central California and
shipped north in automobile box cars. Many of these appear to have
been in assigned service, judging from the frequency with which the
same cars turned up repeatedly either going (loaded) or returning
(empty) in the Bieber interchange book. The Santa Fe, on which much
of that traffic originated, shipped it via the WP-GN whenever
possible, rather than turning it over to arch-rival Southern Pacific.

When I was a youth in Southern California watching Santa Fe trains
come into the Los Angeles area from the east, I thought the Akron,
Canton & Youngstown had to be a sizable railroad, to judge from the
number of AC&Y box cars I saw. It wasn't until much later that I
discovered how small the AC&Y's freight car fleet was, and figured
out that the reason I kept seeing their cars in Los Angeles was that
they were carrying tires from the Ohio tire manufacturers served by
the AC&Y to the auto assembly plants in the LA area. Similarly, I
saw more New Haven box cars in Santa Fe trains than the G-N theory
would lead one to expect, because the New Haven served Pratt &
Whitney, whose aircraft engines and parts were at that time shipped
in a steady stream to the many aircraft manufacturers and military
aviation installations in Southern California.

If you're trying to build a plausible model freight car fleet to run
on a particular line at a particular time - which is what I assume
most STMFC members are doing - generalizations about the national
freight car fleet as a whole are certainly useful, but a whole lot of
variables might result in certain cars being present in larger
numbers than the national average and others never, or hardly ever,
appearing there. It's not clear to me why we have to keep rehashing
this. Or why, yet again, we'll have someone respond, inevitably, to
the discussion by saying "it's my model railroad and I'll run
whatever cars I damn please."

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Freight car Distribution

Aley, Jeff A
 

Armand,

It is not heresy to challenge the Gilbert-Nelson theory.

Of course the usual STMFC rules apply (no personal attacks, etc.).

Regards,

-Jeff Aley
Deputy Moderator, STMFC


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of A. Premo
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:52 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution



I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study to just box cars the results could be much different. Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Carey
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution

Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.
Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey



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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 18:32:00


Re: Freight car Distribution

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

The question should be: Would the Gilbert and Nelson conclusions hold up under the weight of additional data, or not?<<
Well, until someone finds analyses and presents that information, any
answer is going to be purely speculative and probably not very
helpful.

I think Tim Gilbert would have been among the first to agree that this
model was not the final word, but that it was the best model he could
find that agreed with the data theat he had available No one else has
yet dealt with the subject in the same rigorous way.

A bigger sample might tell us some things that support the G-N
theories and some that do not - we are after all dealing with
statistics, which means that there will be plenty of real life
variations from the theoretical model. Until further records are
unearthed and the analysis is done, the model we have is likely to
remain the best available for some time.

However any larger sample needs to be found before it can be analysed.
If anyone can add meanigful data - that is to say conductors' books
from other places and other railroads, then that would certainly help
refine the model.

Is it worth reworking the numbers hased on one additional wheel report
from one train? Probaly not, but if anyone can add a meaningful amount
of new data the same methods can be applied and new conculsians drawn
or old ones strengthened

Regards

Marge Ynaverra
Personal freight car statistician to Mr Bridgeman-Sutton


Re: Freight car slides

water.kresse@...
 

Tony,



My instructor at the local community college (Intro To PhotoShop and Digitizing) would deduct you 5-10 points on every project for not learning/using the pre-scan software (he made you print the SilverFast report and hand it in with the final project product).  He claimed that Adobe gets the instructors together regionally yearly and gives them foundation guidelines for scanning, layout class work, etc.  Yes, there were debateds about that in and after the classes.  You tend to use what you are use to. 



One part of the class goals was to learn the capabilities of the latest version of  SilverFast.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Thompson" <thompson@signaturepress.com>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:48:17 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car slides

Al Kresset wrote:
Worked with Nikon CoolScans and Epson V700s.  Both have excellent  
pre-scan software.  Get it close in 14 bit data before it is saved  
in 8-bit software.  The CoolScan allows you to tweak or calibrate to  
your specific film type (say to get blue tint out, or other aging  
affects, etc.), plus dust removal software, and saves a lot of post-
scan processing time.
       You are entirely right about the capability, Al, but aside from  
dust removal, most photo professionals feel Photoshop or equivalent  
software does a far better job than Nikon's software. Myself, I do not  
EVER let the scanner software do ANY processing of images. But of  
course, YMMV.

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



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


Re: Freight car Distribution

Allen Rueter
 

EJ&E, DTI, BLE cars show up going through Bieber, CA, but not many.

I estimate at < .5%
--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO




________________________________
From: Ned Carey <nedspam@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 10, 2010 11:04:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution


Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.
Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey

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







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

100301 - 100320 of 189831