Date   

Re: Unwrapped lumber (Was:Freight car Distribution )

mopacfirst
 

I've posted the photo I was referring to. You'll find one more interesting thing at the edge of the photo, which is what I was actually photographing and the lumber car just happened to be coupled next to it. Enjoy.

Ron Merrick


Re: Contact info

drgwrail
 

That's Len Killian. Lives at Rotterdam NY.
 
CY

--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Roger Hinman <rhinman@...> wrote:


From: Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Contact info
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 4:44 PM


Len Killington, one of the coauthor's of the Trackside book, had quite a few of them. I saw him do a presentation on the collection about ten years ago. Gerrit's  strength was capturing the railroad scene where he lived.

Roger Hinman
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Charles R Yungkurth wrote:

I purchased Bruin's freight and passenger car slides a few years ago. Not a large quantity and aside from a good number of heavy weight Pullmans I would say that there is nothing "earth shaking" in the car slides. Don't know who ahs the NYC slides. Bob Mohowski would know.
 
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO

--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Roger Hinman <rhinman@...> wrote:

From: Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Contact info
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 4:11 PM

I'm not sure if Gerrit is still with us anymore. His slide collection has been up for sale on EBAY for the past few months.

Roger Hinman.
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, lrkdbn wrote:

Hello group

Does anyone have contact info for Gerrit Bruins, who did a lot
of photography of the NYC in New York State?

Sincerely yours,
Larry King
<lrkdbn@...>

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links

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







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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Aley, Jeff A
 

Tim, Larry, and All,

I think that I (finally) understand the spreadsheet:

The 620,230 cars is the sum of boxcars from the ORER (either 1944 or 1945), FOR THE ROADS SHOWN. I believe the list of roads is the Class 1's, but I don't know that EVERY Class 1 is represented.

For each ICC region (e.g. "Central West"), the percentage of box cars on home rails is given (28.50%).
An assumption is made that each of the roads in the Central West had exactly 28.50% of their cars on home rails. [The roads in Central West are ATSF, CB&Q, CRI&P, D&RGW, SP, and UP].

So, given that UP had 27,553 box cars, and given that 28.50% of them were at home, it follows that 7,853 UP box cars were on the UP, and 19,700 UP box cars were away.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of laramielarry
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:44 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report




--- In STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Jeff

Although box car ownership gradually increased from 1945-1955 your
number of 620,000 for 1945 sounds very low to me. The totals are given
in the Car Builder Cyclopedias. I have not checked them against the ORER
totals.

Tim O'Connor
FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:

Class XM: 614,947
Classes XA, XAB, XAF, XAP, XAR: 112,981
Class XF: 1,402
Class XI: 497
Classes VA, VM, VS: 12,719

The data includes only cars in interchange service on U.S. Class I roads or their lessees. CASO is included.

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: Unwrapped lumber (Was:Freight car Distribution )

mopacfirst
 

I found a photo, August 1971, showing UP 54720 in Wichita, with a load of banded lumber. The bands (I don't know a better term) are stacked four high, apparently two across and four or three along the length of the car, for a total of apparently fourteen bands of lumber. The two lower levels have four bands, consisting of one band of (eyeballing) eight foot lumber, and two or three of longer, perhaps twelve or fourteen. The top two levels consist of all longer lumber. One band is mixed length, and a different band is wrapped, while all the others on the car are bare.

My memory says there were other bare loads of small dimensional lumber at least until the mid 70s.

Ron Merrick


Re: Freight car Distribution

Dave Nelson
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Dave Nelson wrote:
When you boil out all of the bureaucratic out of the above, what's
left is the SP shall, by active solicitation the routing of the
maximum of freight traffic, at rates no higher [and service] at least
equal in every respect than apply concurrently between the same
points via any other route in which it participates, shall operate
the Ogden gateway as parts of one connected continuous line,
between all points in California and Oregon north of and including
Caliente and Santa Margarita CA, and south of and including Klamath
Falls branch and Kirk OR . . .
Tony replies:
Not exactly, Dave. First of all, SP was required to SOLICIT
traffic via UP, but was NOT required to route all traffic to
UP. If a shipper specified D&RGW east of Ogden, that's how it would
go. Second, SP box cars from OUTSIDE the required solicitation zone
could and did move over the Overland Route, so SP cars are NOT
exactly equivalent to UP box cars; moreover, any foreigns SP had
loaded in the west and routed via UP certainly ARE part of that same
story though not marked SP or UP. Third, the "continuous line" story
is aimed at cooperative and coordinated scheduling, not necessarily
at 100 percent interchange, even though the SP and UP had a mutual
obligation, dating back to the Pacific Railroad Act, to interchange
with each other at Ogden "preferentially." Obviously that can only
apply if a shipper route specification does not provide otherwise. I
agree that the UP-SP situation at Ogden distorts the population of
cars interchanged there, primarily in favor of SP (which originated
more traffic than bridge line UP), but SP and UP cars cannot be seen
as equivalent, in my opinion.

ICC said that rates and service could not be less on alternative routes.
And the ICC did not allow the D&RGW to equalize their rates on anything
eastbound until the late 50's / early 60's. So yes, a shipper could specify
CP/DRGW/whatever to Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland etc., but he'd pay more for
the choice and it would probably take longer. Would you, as the company
shipping manager, always make that choice? Would a large number of peers
also do that?

That asked, I will note that by far and away the most common commodity the
SP gave to the DRGW in Odgen was lumber. Rollers perhaps? Not knowing
where the destination was does give SP an out as far as a CP:UP routing was
concerned.

Q: WRT the SP choosing to send a car from Oakland to Chicago via the Sunset
route, how would SP demonstrate they had first actively solicited the
traffic to go CP:UP before filling the blanks to head south instead? Agents
word for it? Check box on the bill of lading? Hoping UP wouldn't notice?
Or just sending it CP:UP and not getting into trouble?

... moreover, any foreigns SP had
loaded in the west and routed via UP certainly ARE part of that same
story though not marked SP or UP....
Yes, that is true, but if one assumes foreign cars on the SP were evenly
distributed, but that SP home road cars were present in numbers well in
excess of the SP's contribution to the national fleet, the appearance of
those foreign road cars would have no effect when seen in on Mike Brock's
layout. But as SP cars loaded at the same plant are done from a pool of
home road cars, a pool which may 4, 5, 6 times larger than SP's contribution
to the national fleet. If they were obligated to send them to Odgen -- or
even just biased towards sending them to Ogden, the SP home road pool would
then show up in wheel reports as more than expected, simply because their
pool was 4, 5, 6 times larger, and Mike would complain for several years
about seeing them in a video tape.

I it is safe to assume SP cars were seen in greter than expected numbers
east of Odgen because of the ICC ruling. But by how many is a question that
cannot be answered w/o (1) knowing to what extent did loadings originating
in Central California, destined to the regions outlined by the ICC, did not
go the Overland Route. Was it 5%? 30? 85%? And (2) were the number of
home road boxcars in Central Califonia roughly equal to any other SP region?
I dunno because I don't have any of that data.

Dave Nelson


Freight Car Distribution - What is the end game?

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

As a non-founding member not party to the origins of this subject, I have to ask:

Let's assume that there was a complete data set covering the (what appears to me to be the rather) limited types of cars covered by the "G-N model". What would people do with the information?

Obviously much could be done with per diem records for every US and Canadian RR for every day from 1900 to 1960, but the issue seems to be whether or not the "G-N model" is good enough over *its* range to work well.

KL


MD&S' / SAL's Magor Pulpwood Cars

John Degnan <Scaler164@...>
 

I am desperately searching for information or drawings or photos of a series of 25 pulpwood cars built in 1956 by Magor Car for the Macon, Dublin & Savannah Railroad. These cars were numbered 5000-5024 on the MD&S, and ended up on the Seaboard Air Line around 1958 when the SAL absorbed the road with road numbers 42900-42924.

The ONLY photo I have ever found of these cars is of one in SAL lettering... car # 42901, seen at the top of page 96 of Paul Faulk's SAL Color Guide.

Is anyone else familiar with these cars? Got any info? Drawing? General dimensions? Photos? Or anything else pertaining to these cars that I can beg, borrow, purchase?

Thanks.


John Degnan
Scaler164@...


Re: Contact info

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

Len Killington, one of the coauthor's of the Trackside book, had quite a few of them. I saw him do a presentation on the collection about ten years ago. Gerrit's strength was capturing the railroad scene where he lived.

Roger Hinman
On Apr 13, 2010, at 6:37 PM, Charles R Yungkurth wrote:

I purchased Bruin's freight and passenger car slides a few years ago. Not a large quantity and aside from a good number of heavy weight Pullmans I would say that there is nothing "earth shaking" in the car slides. Don't know who ahs the NYC slides. Bob Mohowski would know.

Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO

--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Roger Hinman <rhinman@...> wrote:

From: Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Contact info
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 4:11 PM

I'm not sure if Gerrit is still with us anymore. His slide collection has been up for sale on EBAY for the past few months.

Roger Hinman.
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, lrkdbn wrote:

Hello group

Does anyone have contact info for Gerrit Bruins, who did a lot
of photography of the NYC in New York State?

Sincerely yours,
Larry King
<lrkdbn@...>

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

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

Yahoo! Groups Links





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


Re: Contact info

drgwrail
 

I purchased Bruin's freight and passenger car slides a few years ago. Not a large quantity and aside from a good number of heavy weight Pullmans I would say that there is nothing "earth shaking" in the car slides. Don't know who ahs the NYC slides. Bob Mohowski would know.
 
Chuck Yungkurth
Boulder CO

--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Roger Hinman <rhinman@...> wrote:


From: Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Contact info
To: STMFC@...
Date: Tuesday, April 13, 2010, 4:11 PM


I'm not sure if Gerrit is still with us anymore. His slide collection has been up for sale on EBAY for the past few months.


Roger Hinman.
On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, lrkdbn wrote:

Hello group

Does anyone have contact info for Gerrit Bruins, who did a lot
of photography of the NYC in New York State?

Sincerely yours,
Larry King
<lrkdbn@...>



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



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

Yahoo! Groups Links








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


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jeff Aley writes:


"> Aha! I found what I was looking for: Dave Nelson's message of 8/12/2008,"

Let me add that Tim Gilbert wrote on Feb 3, 2006 [ in the STMFC archive ]:

"In 1947, the ownership of foreign boxcars aggregated into eight ICC
Geographic Regions correlated pretty well with the percentage those
regions owned of the National Boxcar Fleet. In 1949, that correlation
was blown to hell.

Mike Brock has argued that SP should be given special treatment on
account of it being an interchange partner of the UP. If SP is given
special treatment, then so should be the partners on the East End of the
UP: - the C&NW, MILW and CB&Q. These four roads had 118 of the foreign
boxcars in 1947 (vs. the equivalent of 105 which their percentages of
the national fleet warranted), and 340 of the foreign boxcars (vs. 212
of the percentages)."

That is a 60.3% "error" from the G-N projection.

Tim continues with:

"Based upon the boxcar data of other Wheel Reports I have parsed, the
correlations of foreign boxcars' ownership are much closer to Fraley's
1947 Report than his 1949 Report with the exception of a 1949 T&NO Wheel
Report in South Texas. 1949 seemed to be an exceptional year in the way
the Recession and the increase in the per diem rate affected the
geographic distribution of boxcar ownership. I have parsed no 1954 Wheel
Reports so I cannot say that Fraley's 1949 Wheel Report could be a guide
to one - 1954 was the next Recession Year."

Mike Brock


Re: Freight car Distribution

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:


As for what it means to the hypothesis Tim and I constructed... I
would regard any SP boxcars reported in wheel reports at points
immediately east of Odgen UT exactly like UP boxcars... that is to
say, to be excluded. Because they're not free rolling (as they were
legally required to hand over to the UP anything they had picked up
the cited regions) the large number of home cars on SP tracks would
be seen east of Ogden in similar large numbers, perhaps just as high
as UP boxcars.
And, while Tony Thompson might disagree...does it matter? I mean, the point is...more SP box cars seem to appear on UP tracks across Wyoming by a significant amount [ to me ]. Dave seems to be saying that the increase is due to specific reasons...and, therefore it is not random. Fine. The proof of the puddin' is in the eaten'...as far as SP box cars on UP tracks is concerned. Other situations may have governed other RR's as well. We may never uncover info [ wheel reports ] showing this, however.

Mike Brock


Re: Contact info

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

I'm not sure if Gerrit is still with us anymore. His slide collection has been up for sale on EBAY for the past few months.


Roger Hinman.

On Apr 13, 2010, at 4:06 PM, lrkdbn wrote:

Hello group

Does anyone have contact info for Gerrit Bruins, who did a lot
of photography of the NYC in New York State?

Sincerely yours,
Larry King
<lrkdbn@...>


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Larry Ostresh wrote:

FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:
Class XM: 614,947
This almost exactly matches Jeff's 620,000 cars for 1945.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car Distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Nelson wrote:
When you boil out all of the bureaucratic out of the above, what's left is the SP shall, by active solicitation the routing of the maximum of freight traffic, at rates no higher [and service] at least equal in every respect than apply concurrently between the same points via any other route in which it participates, shall operate the Ogden gateway as parts of one connected continuous line, between all points in California and Oregon north of and including Caliente and Santa Margarita CA, and south of and including Klamath Falls branch and Kirk OR . . .
Exactly what I said, Dave, a few days ago, albeit without the full citation of the ICC agreement.

As for what it means to the hypothesis Tim and I constructed... I would regard any SP boxcars reported in wheel reports at points immediately east of Odgen UT exactly like UP boxcars... that is to say, to be excluded. Because they're not free rolling (as they were legally required to hand over to the UP anything they had picked up the cited regions) the large number of home cars on SP tracks would be seen east of Ogden in similar large numbers, perhaps just as high as UP boxcars.
Not exactly, Dave. First of all, SP was required to SOLICIT traffic via UP, but was NOT required to route all traffic to UP. If a shipper specified D&RGW east of Ogden, that's how it would go. Second, SP box cars from OUTSIDE the required solicitation zone could and did move over the Overland Route, so SP cars are NOT exactly equivalent to UP box cars; moreover, any foreigns SP had loaded in the west and routed via UP certainly ARE part of that same story though not marked SP or UP. Third, the "continuous line" story is aimed at cooperative and coordinated scheduling, not necessarily at 100 percent interchange, even though the SP and UP had a mutual obligation, dating back to the Pacific Railroad Act, to interchange with each other at Ogden "preferentially." Obviously that can only apply if a shipper route specification does not provide otherwise.
I agree that the UP-SP situation at Ogden distorts the population of cars interchanged there, primarily in favor of SP (which originated more traffic than bridge line UP), but SP and UP cars cannot be seen as equivalent, in my opinion.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car Distribution - Larry Kline

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

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


Naturally double door cars were desirable for lumber, but
lots of lumber was shipped in ordinary 40' single door cars
too. In the 1960's I enjoyed watching a crew of young guys
struggling to unload a 40' car load of "random" lumber (it
looked like an exploded pick-up-stix game). Those "lumber
doors" in 40' box cars weren't there for decoration -- when
the shipper couldn't get any more pieces through the doorway
he threw them in through the door in the end of the car! And
the unloading crew got to untangle the mess.
Tim,

I'm going to theorize that the "pick-up-stix" mess was caused by the rambunctious and inexperienced unloading crew, not the mill. If they left it that way overnight and all those boards developed a crook, they were likely looking for new jobs the next day.

Dad was a carpenter who augmented his income by doing a heck of a lot of weekend and evening "side jobs" when I was a kid, and I spent a lot of time in lumber yards during the fifties and sixties. Unlike the big box home centers of today, lumber was a commodity that was treated with respect, to preserve its value, none of that just throw it in the bin business. Lumber was moved by hand, several sticks at a time, from the boxcar to a truck; from the truck to a neat stack in the shed; from the stack onto the truck for delivery. If someone went to the lumber yard to pick up their own order, the "yard man" picked the order and wheeled it up front, or had the customer spot his truck and loaded it. Having "pickin' privileges" was an honor not to be abused, since it could save maybe maybe 7 - 8% of the cost of the material on a job. Leave the man's stacks jumbled, and you didn't get pickin' privileges again. Lumber yards managed their stock; when the yard man had nothing else to do he gathered up the "crooks", took them to the saw shed, and made them into something salable, like pre-cut concrete stakes.

Speaking of lumber -- anyone know when the first "wrapped"
lumber loads began? I mean the neat stacks of same-length
pieces, all nicely wrapped up. I'm guessing it was sometime
in the 1950's, since that's when wrapped drywall loads on
flats appeared.
I still remember lumber in boxcars in 1959 or '60, maybe a couple years later. Drywall also originally was shipped in boxcars, which must have been an absolutely miserable job to unload. Drywall lent itself to shipping on bulkhead flats, since it was large flat sheets and it didn't have to be piled very high to max out the car's capacity. Lumber was a different story; while large timbers could and were shipped on flatcars, the pile of dimensional lumber got awfully high and tippy before the car's load limit was reached. Greg Martin could likely tell us more, but I don't think dimensional lumber was ever shipped on standard flats, remember that the transitional car was the "Thrall-door" boxcar, which was introduced when, mid sixties? Those cars had a central structure, since they didn't have any sides, and it was only a short leap to the early center beam flats, but all this happened well after 1960.

Dennis


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Aley, Jeff A
 

Aha! I found what I was looking for: Dave Nelson's message of 8/12/2008, excerpted here:


[Quote]

So FWIW, here's where I believe the hypothesis (several) stands today:

1) In the Post WWII years, Class I foreign-road, US marked boxcars and
flatcars were distributed fairly uniformly throughout the nation and each
type of car would be seen in numbers approximating each roads contribution
to the overall US fleet of that car type. IOW, if the NYC owned X% of the
US fleet of boxcars, then approximately X% of all foreign-road boxcars seen
on other railroads would be from the NYC.

2) Canadian Class I marked boxcars and flatcars would appear on US rails at
roughly 10% of the numbers approximating each Canadian roads contribution to
the overall US fleet of that car type. Because of regulation requiring the
prompt return of Canadian cars to Canada it was reasonable to expect a
higher concentration of Canadian marked cars on lines crossing the US
boarder than would be case if such cars wandered freely within the US.

3) The ratio of home to foreign road cars one would find on any given road
would change with overall US economic conditions, with the number of foreign
road cars rising in good economic times and falling in recessions. Actual
data of online and offline, US marked house cars and open top cars can be
found in the ICC Blue books for any given year.

4) The smoothness of the distribution of foreign road boxcar and flatcars
**may** be related to the number of and distance to the nearest interchange
points. IOW, the distribution might not be as even at corners of the US
(e.g., consider Bangor ME; Miami FL; San Diego CA; and Bellingham WA)
relative to, say, Chicago. How much the distribution changes as the number
of interchange points declines and distance to interchange points rises is
not known.

5) The number of home road boxcars and flatcars seen on the home road will
vary according to whether the location observed relative to the ratio of
outbound and inbound shipments. For instance, if Ditchwater has a 9:1 ratio
of shipments to car receipts one might expect to see home road cars in
protective service at Ditchwater as the railroad could not count on inbound
foreign road cars to appear frequently enough. OTOH, if Gotham City has a
1:9 ratio of shipments to car receipts one might expect to see very few home
road cars in protective service at Gotham City as there would be plenty of
foreign road MTY's that could be pressed into service.

6) The data does not support any hypothesis on the distribution of hoppers.
I'm not sure what Tim thought about gons or stock cars.

7) The hypothesis do not suggest anything about what one might see in any
given train but instead indicate what one might see in multiple trains over
a period of time. How many trains... How much time... The data does not
provide a definitive answer but does appear to hold true above 1000 cars.

8) The data indicates there is a **slightly higher occurrence** of adjacent
road foreign cars near interchange points with that foreign road but given
that most roads percentage of the nation fleet are very a small percentage,
in most cases the increase in actual numbers is nominal.

9) For purposes of building up a roster of model cars, the buyer would do
well to buy 20-25% home road and 75-80% foreign road boxcars and flatcars,
with the foreign road cars in rough proportion to what each foreign road
contributed to the US fleet. Ideally the buyer would acquire a large number
of additional cars for roads that contributed fewer cars to the US fleet and
using them as a pool, to cycle individual road names in and out to represent
the last 5-10% of his foreign road cars.

Dave Nelson
[End quote]


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Wendye Ware
 

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

Jeff

Although box car ownership gradually increased from 1945-1955 your
number of 620,000 for 1945 sounds very low to me. The totals are given
in the Car Builder Cyclopedias. I have not checked them against the ORER
totals.

Tim O'Connor
FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:

Class XM: 614,947
Classes XA, XAB, XAF, XAP, XAR: 112,981
Class XF: 1,402
Class XI: 497
Classes VA, VM, VS: 12,719

The data includes only cars in interchange service on U.S. Class I roads or their lessees. CASO is included.

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report

Aley, Jeff A
 

Bruce,

I was thinking more along the lines of Dave's message of May 4, 2009 (STMFC #81532):

[Quote]

The wheel reports did, IMO, confirm the basic hypothesis and allowed us to
further specify when it applied: Post WWII, on mainline trunk routes,
excluding home road boxcars, the percentage of boxcars marked for foreign
roads will closely match the percentages of boxcars contributed to the US
fleet by each railroad. By boxcar, I mean one that can be put into general
purpose use. The wheel reports do show a bit of a bias towards nearby
connections, but here I believe the sample size of locations that we have is
too small to make a good hypothesis on that point. Further, as almost all
railroads contributed less than 5% of the national fleet (most less than
1.5%), even a large bias towards local connections would compute to a very
small number per 100 foreign road boxcars.

Last, the hypothesis makes no predicition on what one might observe in
individual trains.

[End Quote]

Somewhere, I think there's a msg stating that locations of direct interchange would have additional bias (e.g. Ogden on the SP). But I haven't yet found such a msg today.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:35 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Aley, Jeff A wrote:

Bruce,

My recollection of the G-N model is that it DOES
account for regional bias. It will be difficult for us to educate
each other if we are each talking about a different "G-N model"!

If you have the time, please point out to us which
STMFC message contains the G-N model. I will also try to do so,
but I won't be able to get to it until late in the day.
Jeff,

It is important to recognize that both emails I cite below are early
examples of our discussions on this subject, and that the discussion
has matured over the years so that these may not represent the
ultimate iteration of the NG hypothesis.

I would start with Dave Nelson's message 18550, May 5, 2003. This is
perhaps the earliest and most basic statement of the hypothesis. In
this email, Dave does not mention anything about regional biases, but
does allow for 20% of the fleet being "other cars". Then, I would go
to Tim Gilbert's message 18757 of May 8, 2003, which is a
comprehensive statistical discussion. Interestingly, in that email,
Tim did say "the modeler should use a fudge factor to account for the
bias towards nearby railroads which might interchange directly with
his modeled road in the 1945-1955 era." However, his DATA, says that
this is not true. When looking at the 1946 Southern RR wheel
reports, the Southern region actually had slightly fewer home region
cars than predicted (10.5% vs. 11.7%). The 1947 UP wheel reports
have slightly more Central West region cars than expected (17.9% vs
15.7%). Statistically, both of these are likely to be judged to be
the same (you cannot reject the null hypothesis) and therefore, there
is no real regional bias present, or if there it, it is so small as
to be statistically insignificant (which is the same as saying it
ain't there <G>).

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Re: Freight car Distribution

Dave Nelson
 

laramielarry wrote:
(U.S. only) in the January 1938 ORER as follows:

Road: #cars; percentage
SP: 24,398; 3.2%
WP: 3,141; 0.4%
US: 764,080; 100%

So in this 1938 train book the SP had over 2.6 times as many box and
auto cars as it "should" have had, and the WP had 6 times its share.

Similar results are found in the Ferguson and Fraley train books, I
believe, but their analysis is hampered by the conductors' reporting
of the car type for less than half of their cars. The raw numbers
seem consistent with Fitz's data however:

Road, Conductor, # (all) cars
SP, Fitz, 64 (62 box/auto) (Sept-Oct, 1938) WP, Fitz, 18 Total, Fitz,
2362

SP, Ferguson, 101 (May-June, 1938)
WP, Ferguson, 25
Total, Ferguson, 2788

SP, Fraley, 45 (Sept-Oct, 1938)
WP, Fraley, 11
Total, Fraley, 2510

In each of the 1938 train books (all from the Laramie/Rawlins run on
the UP), the WP has about one-fourth as many cars as the SP, whereas
it "should" have only one-eighth. The SP is certainly
over-represented, but the WP is over-represented in spades!

The over-representation made indeed be part of a regional bias. But let's
not get too excited about this; The WP overage is the difference between 4
cars per thousand and 24 per thousand. Yes, it's different. Different
enough to note. But it isn't exactly massive numbers either. As for the
SP, here's a lengthy quote from Stuart Daggett as published in the
University of California's series _Economics_, vol XI, dated 1932-35 (and
yes, I own it). From pages 142-143 (and abbreviations and/or emphasis are
mine):

[Background: Dagget is discussing the issues of who shall control the
Central Pacific after it is split off from the UP in 1912 -- UP or SP?] ...
"The ICC decided in favor of the SP.... At the same time the Commission
attached conditions to its order that produced the effect of a compromise
between the parties. These conditions are reproduced in the following
paragrpahs:"

"First. The SP shall join with the UP in maintaining via the lines of the
said companies between Omaha NE, and San Francisco Bay points ***as parts of
one connected continous line*** through passenger, mail, express, and
freight train service between San Francsico or Oakland CA and Chicago IL, at
least equal in every respect to that afforded by either with it's
connections between Los Angeles CA or Portland OR, and Chicago IL."

"Second. The SP shall join with the UP inmaintaining via the lines of said
companies between Roseville CA and Omaha NE ***as parts of one connected
continous line***, perishible train service from Roseville, CA to Chicago IL
at least equal in every respect to that afforded by either with it's
connections between from San Bernadino CA or Colton CA, to Chicago IL."

"Third: The SP shall cooperate with the UP in the maintenance of train
schedules under which neither will discriminate as to time or service agains
the other in favor of any other connection through Ogdsen or Salt Lake City
UT".

"Fourth: The SP shall, at the request of the UP, provide for the publication
and maintenance of rates via the CP through Ogden UT between all SP and CP
points in California, west of Banning, and in Oregon on the the one hand,
and Colordao common points and points east thereof on the other, ***no
higher than apply concurrently between the same points via any other route
in which it participates***".

"Fifth: The SP shall cooperate with the UP to secure ***by active
solicitation the routing of the maximum of freight traffic*** via the UP and
CP lines through the Missouri River and Ogden, UT ***as parts of one
connected continous line***, between all points in California and Oregon
north of and including Caliente and Santa Margarita CA, and south of and
including Klamath Falls branch and Kirk OR on the one hand and points north
and west of a line along the northern boundaries of Oklahoma and Arkansas to
the Missisippi River, thence along the Mississipi and Ohio Rivers (but not
including intermediate cities on the Ohio River) to Wheeling WV, thence
north on a line drawn just east of Pittsburgh PA and Buffalo NY to Niagra
Falls NY."



When you boil out all of the bureaucratic out of the above, what's left is
the SP shall, by active solicitation the routing of the maximum of freight
traffic, at rates no higher [and service] at least equal in every respect
than apply concurrently between the same points via any other route in which
it participates, shall operate the Ogden gateway as parts of one connected
continous line, between all points in California and Oregon north of and
including Caliente and Santa Margarita CA, and south of and including
Klamath Falls branch and Kirk OR on the one hand and points north and west
of a line along the northern boundaries of Oklahoma and Arkansas to the
Missisippi River, thence along the Mississipi and Ohio Rivers (but not
including intermediate cities on the Ohio River) to Wheeling WV, thence
north on a line drawn just east of Pittsburgh PA and Buffalo NY to Niagra
Falls NY".

Meaning there should be no discernible difference in cost or service to a
shipper between described points as to which route should be selected. So
why would they not chose a CP:UP routing??? And SP would likely not risk
the ire of the ICC by filling in alternative routings when the shipper chose
not to pick one.

As for what it means to the hypothesis Tim and I constructed... I would
regard any SP boxcars reported in wheel reports at points immediately east
of Odgen UT exactly like UP boxcars... that is to say, to be excluded.
Because they're not free rolling (as they were legally required to hand over
to the UP anything they had picked up the cited regions) the large number of
home cars on SP tracks would be seen east of Ogden in similar large
numbers, perhaps just as high as UP boxcars. SP boxcars would probably also
be over represented on any C&NW wheel reports between Ohaha and Chicago, not
perhaps not as large a bias.

It's possible there were other such legal biases built into the movement of
ordinary boxcars but other than restrictions on Canadian cars, I'm not aware
of any.

Dave Nelson


Re: Freight car Distribution - Larry Kline

Tim O'Connor
 

If the peddler served a rural farm area with grain elevators,
then in a lot of cases the mix of cars often would reflect the
mix of cars on mainline freights. There are a great many photos
of peddlers with very unexpected box cars -- like BAR, PRR, or
SAL on the NP in Montana or the UP in Nebraska.

On the other hand, if the main industries served by the peddler
required specialized cars, like insulated box cars for canned
goods, or extra-height box cars for airplane parts, well, the
mix of cars is going to be very different.

After WWII, the category of "specialized" box cars became so
large that it was listed separately in the CBC tallies. That
trend accelerated throughout the postwar era and that's one
reason the G-N model becomes less useful by 1960. Another reason
is massive changes in the RR industry, loss of LCL, steep declines
in traffic in the northeastern and midwestern US, mergers, etc.

Tim O'Connor

Larry said he studied mainline through freights and said other
trains may not match his research. This brings up something I don't
think has been mentioned - The type of train. We've implied it by
saying a branch may get skewed traffic, but wouldn't the type of
train be as important as the location such as a branch? Would
through freights being more likely to match the N-G model vs.
peddler freights, turns and locals. - Even if that local was on the
main line?
Ned,

Excluding assigned service cars, I have to ask, why would you think
so? Why should "peddler freights, turns and locals" be any
different? The cars on through freights have to be going somewhere,
and they will end up on precisely those trains...

Regards
Bruce

105861 - 105880 of 195507