Date   

Re: Freight car Distribution

Viv Brice
 

Thanks, Dave,
You've taken this the next step and applied the thread to the model railroad
world. It has set me thinking on how to include the necessary car swapping
into my own layout. And I'll definitely be visiting my hobby shop.
Viv


Chuck and Viv,

The statistical "variability" of "traffic" you are hinting at was discussed
on this group back in February 2009.

I crafted a post based on a simple statistical analysis, not to prove or
disprove the basis for a specific road appearing at a specific time and
location, but simply to illustrate the probability of certain reporting
marks appearing in a sample set. (devansprr Wed Feb 4, 2009 4:18 pm ((PST)))

My focus is WWII, and I had been reviewing the Delano color photos to get a
sense of freight car weathering. A picture from Belan, NM caught my eye
since it had just four box cars in it - all eastern roads. One B&O (no
surprise - big fleet), one Wabash (not that surprising), one Erie (getting a
little rarer), and one C&WC 40' Steel Automobile car (C&WC's TOTAL X and XM
fleet was 532 cars - this is kind of like the mason jar car that caused so
much discussion on this group a year or two ago). The national X/XM fleet
was over 800,00 cars in 1943, so we are talking one out of every 1,600 cars.
Now that C&WC reporting mark, in New Mexico, was a LONG shot.

This triggered two thoughts - most railfans probably recall the odd, rare
car much more clearly than recalling the predominance of plain jane cars
from the majors of the day (during WWII, eleven roads owned half the
nation's box car fleet. Watch trains for a few hours at a busy spot, and
people of the era might forget the fact that 9% or so of the cars were PRR -
see them everyday). But a C&WC car? Where is that railroad? I have never
seen that before. Not to be forgotten quickly (and more likely photographed
too - which opens another can of worms.)

Thought two - for general merchandise box cars, not in captive service, on
mainlines that are primarily bridge traffic, some simple statistics are
probably a valid analysis tool to suggest trends. For example, if my planned
mainline model railroad has a number of freight trains that come out of
staging every operating session, with a total of 200 box cars arriving on
layout, then I doubt my C&WC model should make an appearance every op
session (I might be able to justify having the C&WC car pass through once
each session if I had 1600 box cars arrive on layout every session - not
likely ;-) If it did appear every session among just 200 box cars, and my
model railfan was counting cars (or we are counting his old home movies ;-),
then one would think that C&WC was a major road, since it would appear more
often than a boxcar from T&P, Cotton Belt, D&H, WM and WP since each of
those well known roads had less than 0.5% of the national box car fleet
(less than 1 in 200 boxcars nationally for each of these roads).

In the end analysis, statistics suggests that modelers are quite justified
in including a considerable "fiddle" fleet in their staging area so that
some sense of randomness can be added to the trains that appear on their
layouts out of staging. In fact, the huge number of small roads during the
WWII era might actually make a fiddle yard in staging a mandatory feature if
one wants to model the variability of freight car reporting marks that
should appear on a layout.

For example, if your fleet of cars generates 200 boxcar moves (traffic) onto
a layout every session, and you want to provide a prototypical sense of
randomness over 5 operating sessions before an unusually rare car makes a
second appearance, then you would draw those 200 box cars from a fleet of at
least 236 cars. At least 25 of those cars would each be from a different,
small fleet RR, and appear only once out of the five sessions. This is
because roads such as Rutland, Clinchfield, Georgia, SP&S, DM&IR, TH&B each
had X/XM fleets LESS than 0.1% of the national fleet. Each session, only
five of those "rare" 25 cars would appear on the layout. So over five
sessions, that Rutland box car should only arrive on the layout ONCE.

To further increase the sense of "randomness", out of the 200 box cars
arriving "on-scene" each session, 178 would be regulars on the layout,
representing the 39 roads that during WWII each had at least 0.5% of the
national X/XM fleet (at least 1 in 200 cars - Katy was the smallest fleet
that just makes this cut). So those 178 cars would appear every session.
From the rare "fiddle" fleet described above, five other boxcars from the
smallest 147 RR X/XM fleets would also appear each session.

But that leaves 17 other boxcars to deploy each session (200-178-5), and to
maintain the sense of randomness, those 17 cars would need to come from a
fleet of at least 33 cars, one each representing the 33 roads that did not
make the "big fleet" cut of 0.5% (39 roads), but that were bigger than the
147 roads/owners that are in the rare "fiddle" fleet. Each session, 17 cars
from this intermediate fiddle fleet of 33 roads would be selected. Note that
railroads in this fleet include T&P, Cotton Belt, D&H, WM, KCS & WP. Out of
the five operating sessions, some cars in this intermediate fleet may appear
three or four times, others just once or twice.

So now our model railfan captures on his model movie camera five rare X/XM's
out of 200 that passed his favorite train watching spot that day. But how
many will notice that, averaged over time, and assuming N-G is in effect at
this location, 100 of the 200 X/XM's that are captured by his camera on that
day will be from the 11 roads that owned 50% of the nation's WWII box car
fleet? (Boring...)

Note that all of this is just to "normalize" the reporting marks. Additional
"fiddle" cars would be required for "unusual" and rare cars that were a
clear spotting feature. For example, the GN plywood war emergency box cars
were unusual and standouts to some extent, and while GN would have several
cars appear every session, statistically speaking the GN car was almost as
rare as the C&WC car. So it might warrant a place in the "fiddle" fleet
instead of the every-session 178 car fleet. One could obviously extend this
concept to an absurd extent, and that is clearly not necessary.

But I think it might be a worthy objective, on a model railroad, that the
rare prototype cars remain rare, and that a WWII train full of one-offs
would never occur, and that instead a train with a significant percentage of
1937 ARA standard box cars (about 1 in 7 of the nation's X/XM fleet in WWII)
should be present, as should one or two PPR X29's (that class alone was
nearly 3% of the national fleet).

To highlight this point, during WWII, fully 40% of the nation's steel, 40
foot, non-PRR box car fleet was the 1937 ARA design! Fortunately for me
Branchline, Red Caboose, and Intermountain have a wide selection for that
fleet - many with WWII paint schemes.

Sooo, feel free to visit the hobby shop, and as long as you (1) restrict
your purchases to cars accurate for the era you model, and (2) you model a
location with significant through/bridge traffic (or else all of this ENTIRE
thread goes out the window, as Elden has clearly demonstrated during
previous discussions), and (3) include a fleet of about 40 or so fiddle cars
in your staging yard so "rare" cars are "rare" on your layout, and (4) your
visiting "consist" police have a memory that only lasts about five op
sessions, THEN, no one can question the stray appearance of that C&WC box
car, or that yellow one with the Mason Jar on it - once every five sessions.

Dave Evans

PS - looking at my Feb 2009 post on recommended fiddle fleets, it was a
little confusing - if I have time this weekend I may clean it up and re-post
so it is more understandable.


Re: CGW 1934 X29

mopacfirst
 

I do indeed see a couple more Dalmans that I hadn't seen before. But look at car 87043 on p. 25. This group was built with coil-elliptic trucks, not Dalmans, but the B-end truck (left in the photo) is plausibly one where the elliptic spring was removed. I have difficulty believing that to be true of the other truck (right in the photo).

I'm really trying to determine what a 'typical' car from this series would have looked like in the early 60s, and I think I'm convinced that a lot of them would still have had the Dalmans (the first 1000 cars, anyway).

My guess, also, is that non-rebuilt cars that were still in the 85000 - 86000 series would have been more likely to have them than any of the leased and renumbered cars.

Ron Merrick

--- In STMFC@..., "brianleppert@..." <brianleppert@...> wrote:




I can find only one photo in the Color Guide that shows one of these cars WITHOUT its original Dalman trucks. #W85320 shows up on pages 106 and 107, photographed in 1978 with roller bearing Ride Control trucks. Other cars appearing in the book, photogrphed in 1967, 1980 and 1984, still have their Dalmans.

The Summer, 1992 issue of North Western Lines had a seven page article on these box cars.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV


--- In STMFC@..., "mopacfirst" <ron.merrick@> wrote:

I'll refine my original question just a bit.

By the end of this time frame (1960), were there very many of the Dalman two-level trucks still around on these CGW cars? The CGW color guide suggests not, but I'm curious if this is a statistical quirk based on the photos that made it into the book.

The coil-elliptic spring truck, I can certainly see that.

Ron Merrick


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

Michael Aufderheide
 

Tim,
 
The Monon logs do distinguish between XM ('B') and XA, XAP, XAR, XMR ('A') cars, though not all correctly.  I haven't looked into it but I wonder if the car had double doors it was labled an 'A' weather the auxilliary door was active or not.  The cars had a wide variety of loads.  As a sample here are some from fall 1948:
 






ACL
52011
SALT

ATSF
8560
CABTS

BO
297474
STONE

CNW
111830
MDSE

ERIE
96962
CABTS

GTW
578543
AUTOS

IC
38113
MDSE

IC
39464
REFGRS

LV
6401
SPRINGS

MILW
593256
MDSE

NYC
147846
MCHY

PM
91342
REFGRS

PRR
63305
A PARTS

PRR
65370
A PARTS

PRR
66469
A PARTS

PRR
67127
A PARTS

SAL
11309
PHOS

SAL
22755
SPRINGS

SLSF
154238
MDSE

SLSF
154055
STEEL

SOU
272964
AUTOS

SOU
340282
LBR

SOU
375252
LIME

SOU
148379
MDSE

SOU
272617
REFGRS

UP
455826
AUTOS

WAB
45562
A PARTS

WAB
45718
A PARTS

WAB
17044
A PARTS

WAB
47232
MDSE




Regards,
 
Mike Aufderheide

--- On Thu, 4/15/10, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report
To: STMFC@...
Date: Thursday, April 15, 2010, 7:58 AM


 




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
Tony

Yes, it is about the same -- However, it begs the question of whether
various conductors' reports distinguish between XM's and XA's for the
purpose of the various ownership tallies. Especially since many XA's
were (as you have noted Tony) used for lumber or other cargos during
peacetime, and during the war (1945) we can pretty safely assume there
was relatively little automobile production!

Tim O'Connor


Re: Milling in Transit

Aley, Jeff A
 

Elden,

Was this common? I thought flour was shipped in barrels or sacks, and not loose, in bulk, in boxcars.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 12:38 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Milling in Transit



For the modelers, there are number of great Paul Winters photos of box cars
with doors open, on RIP or clean-out tracks, with the intact or remains of
grain doors, waiting for them to be restored to general service condition,
coated with flour, including over the door where the spout was located. It
appears that the grain doors were just as good for holding in the flour, as
they were for grain, and were only removed after the car finished the trip to
the flour end user/Wholesaler/bakery and was routed back into a yard for
clean out. It makes an extremely interesting modeling aspect.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Aley,
Jeff A
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:28 PM
To: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Milling in Transit

Dennis,

Could you please expand upon this topic?

For example, who is it that has his wheat milled in transit: the farmer, or
some intermediate elevator? Is the "milling in transit" done between the
grain elevator and flour consumer (e.g. bakery)?

You imply that the exact same boxcar gets used for the flour as was used for
the grain. Is this always the case, or was that a simplification?

Thanks much,

-Jeff

From: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
soolinehistory
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:36 AM
To: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic

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

Ross

I've heard of storage in transit for grain, but milling in transit??
Wouldn't the transformation of bulk grain into bags of flour involve
an entirely new tariff?

Tim O'Connor
No, it was a single tariff designed to keep the flour traffic on the line
that had originated the grain move. It goes back a long way; here's a link to
a nespaper article from 1890:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A9629C
94619ED7CF
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A9629
C94619ED7CF>

Keep in mind that grain is fungible, like money is. When you go to the bank
to make a withdrawal, you don't get the same money you deposited back; you
get different but equal money. Grain is the same, you don't get your grain
back out of the elevator, you get different but equal grain. Same with
milling in transit. You don't get the flour that was milled from the grain
you hauled in; you get equal flour milled from different grain. So, the car
just emptied of grain can be immediately refilled with flour and sent on its
way.

Dennis


Re: Milling in Transit

Aley, Jeff A
 

Dennis,

Thanks! One more question: I thought that Milling In Transit was somehow similar to "Diversion" in which a car might start its journey headed for New York City, and be changed en-route to be shipped to Los Angeles.
Is this kind of operation a part of Milling In Transit, or am I just confused?

Thanks,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of soolinehistory
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:31 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Milling in Transit




--- In STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>, "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote:

Dennis,

Could you please expand upon this topic?

For example, who is it that has his wheat milled in transit: the farmer, or some intermediate elevator? Is the "milling in transit" done between the grain elevator and flour consumer (e.g. bakery)?

You imply that the exact same boxcar gets used for the flour as was used for the grain. Is this always the case, or was that a simplification?

Thanks much,

-Jeff
I'm getting near the fringes of my knowledge, but I'll start, and someone who knows more can chime in and correct anything I've mis-interpreted.

Milling in transit appears to pre-date the formation of the ICC. In the rough-and-tumble pre-regulatory days it was a way railroads could induce millers to locate on their line; offer a single through rate from source to customer. It appears to be the reason that both the M &St.L and Soo Line were built; the millers in Minneapolis were tired of paying two local rates to move grain in and then ship flour out, when the same RR's they were shipping on were offering better rates to mills located further east. The Minneapolis milling interests started building a railroad to St. Louis, but lost control, they later started two other lines, the Minneapolis & Pacific to bring grain in from the west, and the Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic to ship flour to the east. When these roads were finished, they were consolidated into the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie. Then Pillsbury and the other Minneapolis Millers could also enjoy the the advantages of milling in transit.

Since this was the entrenched way that the flour trade was being conducted, it continued under ICC regulation; the tariffs were published, and all the ICC concerned itself with is that the rates were equally available to all.

Who was the Shipper? As I understand it, it was the miller, who bought the grain delivered at the elevator, and paid the freight from there to the customer, with the priveledge of a stop-off to mill it into flour somewhere along the way. The combined rate was less than the sum of the local inbound rate on grain and local outbound rate on flour; it was advantageous to the railroad as it gave them a longer haul on grain that was captive to their line.

Did it have to be the same car? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I think most tariffs had a provision for changing the cars en route; there are instances of railroads who would reload coal into home road cars back in the days when labor was cheap.

In reality, it may well have often been a paper transaction, with fifty tons of inbound grain simply matched with fifty tons of outbound flour for billing purposes. You will notice the 1890 newspaper article I linked to concerns itself in part with the outbound loads being heavier than the inbounds :-)
However, since the same class of car was used for both grain and flour, back in the day, I would suspect that from track side, it looked like the same cars being used.

Dennis


Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

No problem, if before hand you had negotiated a rate with the railroad
tariff bureau for the shipment of $100.00 dollar bills with a stop privilege
for the conversation to pennies. Your rate with stop privileges would be
published in a tariff and you could have shipped it. Everything that the
railroads hauled was covered by a published tariff rate.
Not knowing anything about tariffs I'm going to assume that the cost would have been for paper and copper? :-)
--
Jon Miller


Re: Freight car Distribution

Paul <buygone@...>
 

Tim:



First you need to know is the industry located within the switching limits
of a city or out on the road. If in a city you didn't have a conductor but
a switch Forman. With in yard limits you had switchman working outside the
limits you had brakeman and conductor. Within the city the switch Forman
would spot the car from a switch list. In road territory the conductor
would have an empty car waybill, the same for moving an empty car across the
railroad to deliver to another city or connecting carrier.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:47 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution






Paul, what kind of paperwork is handled by the conductor who is
delivering the empty car to the industry? Is this just called a
Car Order? Or maybe an "Empty Waybill"?

When an empty car is moved to another (distant) location (e.g. to
return to its owner) is that called a Waybill?

Tim O'Connor

Jeff:

Not so. Customer ordered a car/cars from the Car Distributor. Car
Distributor issued an order to the yard for placing an empty/empties at a
given industry. Car/cars were spotted. After loaded Industrial Clerk
signed for the bill of lading and ordered car/cars pulled. Bill of lading
was turned in to the Agents office and a waybill was typed out.

Paul C. Koehler


From: STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com
[mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com] On Behalf
Of
Aley, Jeff A
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:01 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution

Tim,

Tony Thompson can answer better than I can. But if I understood his clinic
correctly, the Agent wrote the empty car order and waybill BEFORE the car
was spotted for loading. So the waybill, with the car # typed on it, was
already completed.

Therefore, I conclude that if the industry randomly loads the car, the
paperwork would have to be changed.

On the other hand, concepts like "milling in transit" or other "diversions"
can certainly have no a' priori knowledge of where the car will end up.

Regards,

-Jeff

Not to belabor this point, but let's suppose the railroad agent/clerk
follows the AAR rules and sends a PRR, WABASH, SP and UP box car to a
single shipper on the SP for loading -- with the intention that the
PRR box car will be sent to the PRR, the WABASH car to that railroad,
and so on.

Now all four cars get shoved up to the shipper's dock. The shipper
asked for four cars, and has his loads all prepared at their doors.
The ORDER of the four cars is random -- the railroad certainly did
not sort them according to each load's destination.

So the shipper loads the 1st car, the 2nd car, etc -- without any
regard to the ownership of the car!! How could it be otherwise? Can
you imagine the shipper worrying about whether AAR rules are being
followed properly? He just wants to get his shipments loaded.

I don't know if the above scenario is true, but I've never heard any
contradictory evidence. Looking at photos of railroad freight houses
in the Chicago area, it sures looks like a dog's breakfast of cars
was shoved onto the loading/unloading tracks, taking care only to
line up the doorways for crossing via ramps between cars.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Box/auto distribution 1938

Wendye Ware
 

Tim O'Connor said

"You say your data show "dominance" of SP cars -- but isn't it just 201 or so SP cars in 34 random trains over a period of a month? Now, that might show "dominance" but it might just also be random luck. If the UP ran 3 trains a day, I'd say that was a great sample. But even if UP only ran 20 trains a day... Well, it's not much to go on."

The 201 SP cars represent 15.4% of all non-UP boxcars, whereas according to the G-N hypothesis it should be 3.3%. The expected number of cars is 44 according to G-N. That sounds like SP dominance to me, but of course it could be due to "random luck". That would make the many discussions on this list of the presumed anomaly pointless. Perhaps someone more statistically gifted than I am can tell us how likely the dominance is due to the luck of the draw.

The train books cover 120 trains, not 34. (A large number of the trains are Roseville Fruits and other trains with few or no box cars, as Mike Brock has pointed out in the past couple of days.) I wish I could believe they were "random trains" – that would give me much greater confidence that my results are valid and not some sampling fluke.

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic

Paul <buygone@...>
 

Tim:



No problem, if before hand you had negotiated a rate with the railroad
tariff bureau for the shipment of $100.00 dollar bills with a stop privilege
for the conversation to pennies. Your rate with stop privileges would be
published in a tariff and you could have shipped it. Everything that the
railroads hauled was covered by a published tariff rate.



Paul



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim
O'Connor
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:11 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic






Ah, but Dennis, suppose I shipped a box car of $100 bills to the bank,
and withdrew it again as pennies?

:-) Tim "infungible" O'Connor

I've heard of storage in transit for grain, but milling in transit??
Wouldn't the transformation of bulk grain into bags of flour involve
an entirely new tariff?

Tim O'Connor
No, it was a single tariff designed to keep the flour traffic on the line
that had originated the grain move. It goes back a long way; here's a link
to a nespaper article from 1890:

http://query.
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A962
9C94619ED7CF>
nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A9629C94619ED7CF

Keep in mind that grain is fungible, like money is. When you go to the bank
to make a withdrawal, you don't get the same money you deposited back; you
get different but equal money. Grain is the same, you don't get your grain
back out of the elevator, you get different but equal grain. Same with
milling in transit. You don't get the flour that was milled from the grain
you hauled in; you get equal flour milled from different grain. So, the car
just emptied of grain can be immediately refilled with flour and sent on its
way.

Dennis




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


Re: Lumber Loading - for orders

Ross McLeod <cdnrailmarine@...>
 

"Lumber definitely could be diverted before it reached its final
destination. And diversions could go in any direction, as long as
someone paid for it (the diversion, that is)."

Lumber cars could be billed for orders to destination such as Savage on the NMS, and other recognized hold points. There was a charge made for the diversion as well the cars would incur track storage charges after a specified time period. As to your options for the new destination you would have had to picked a hold point that would protect the thru rates which were published in TCFB 17  (NE/SE), 18 (TX/OK,KS etc),  28 (IL/MO etc) from western origins, Savage worked to destinations in these tariffs. Other western hold points were available but depending on how optimistic the lumber broker was they may have been reached too quickly.
 
I believe Marshalltown on the CNW was also lumber hold point.
 
Ross McLeod Calgary 



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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


Re: Box/auto distribution 1938

Wendye Ware
 

Hi Tim

You said "It has nothing to do with the number of trains Larry".

My comment about fewer trains raising my percentages was in the context of increasing my sample percentages. Mark Amfahr's data showed that 30 – 33 freight trains per day crossed Sherman Hill in 1949. This implied that the 120 trains in my data represented a sample of about 4.5%, not the "less than 1%" that you had previously asserted. If there were fewer than 30-33 trains per day, then my sample percentages would rise. For example if there were only 20 trains per day my sample percentage would be 7% instead of 4.5%. The sample percentage has everything to do with the number of trains – it is the denominator for calculating the percentage.

And then you said:
"Tim Gilbert pointed out that the percentage of home road cars staying on-line greatly increased throughout the depression years, and so the distribution of cars nationwide was quite different in 1949 than in 1938. The more-or-less uniform distribution of plain box cars is far more apparent in the late 1940's than in the late 1930's. The year 1938 was a severe recession. Industrial output declined sharply. I assume that means there were a lot fewer PRR and other eastern cars on the SP and UP than would be in normal economic times."

Agreed!!! That is exactly what I said in post #89909:
"I think I recall Tim Gilbert writing that the G-N hypothesis fits the data well during economic prosperity but does less well during recessions and depressions. The year 1938 was during the Great Depression, of course. The high proportion of home cars (41%) is another indication that companies may be keeping their cars close by. It might be that modelers wishing to have a realistic mix of cars on their trains should pick an era first – or perhaps even a specific year and season, and then check what was happening in the national economy at that time. The choice of the G-N vs. a regional (or any other) model for an accurate freight car composition may well depend on such ephemera."

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: Milling in Transit

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

For the modelers, there are number of great Paul Winters photos of box cars
with doors open, on RIP or clean-out tracks, with the intact or remains of
grain doors, waiting for them to be restored to general service condition,
coated with flour, including over the door where the spout was located. It
appears that the grain doors were just as good for holding in the flour, as
they were for grain, and were only removed after the car finished the trip to
the flour end user/Wholesaler/bakery and was routed back into a yard for
clean out. It makes an extremely interesting modeling aspect.

Elden Gatwood

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Aley,
Jeff A
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:28 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Milling in Transit



Dennis,

Could you please expand upon this topic?

For example, who is it that has his wheat milled in transit: the farmer, or
some intermediate elevator? Is the "milling in transit" done between the
grain elevator and flour consumer (e.g. bakery)?

You imply that the exact same boxcar gets used for the flour as was used for
the grain. Is this always the case, or was that a simplification?

Thanks much,

-Jeff

From: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> ] On Behalf Of
soolinehistory
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 8:36 AM
To: STMFC@... <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic

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

Ross

I've heard of storage in transit for grain, but milling in transit??
Wouldn't the transformation of bulk grain into bags of flour involve
an entirely new tariff?

Tim O'Connor
No, it was a single tariff designed to keep the flour traffic on the line
that had originated the grain move. It goes back a long way; here's a link to
a nespaper article from 1890:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A9629C
94619ED7CF
<http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9802EED8153BE533A25752C1A9629
C94619ED7CF>

Keep in mind that grain is fungible, like money is. When you go to the bank
to make a withdrawal, you don't get the same money you deposited back; you
get different but equal money. Grain is the same, you don't get your grain
back out of the elevator, you get different but equal grain. Same with
milling in transit. You don't get the flour that was milled from the grain
you hauled in; you get equal flour milled from different grain. So, the car
just emptied of grain can be immediately refilled with flour and sent on its
way.

Dennis


Re: Freight car Distribution

Ross McLeod <cdnrailmarine@...>
 

"Per diem was a fixed daily charge. I don't think railroads paid mileage
on other railroads' cars. I think the only time railroads played per diem
games was when cars were near interchanges, and then they shuffled cars
to an interchange before the midnight hour, so the receiving railroad
would be saddled with the per diem for the next day. Per diem was quite
low in those days, and was the same for all cars, around $2/day. Some
railroads (like GN) had a per diem surplus and HATED it, because it
amounted to a subsidy to other railroads (i.e. they rented cars out at
less than the cost of ownership)."

In my experience mileage charges also applied but this was after the dates covered by this list, I need to dig out some old Equipment Registers. Ross McLeod Calgary



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com


Re: was LCL - Stop Off traffic

Ross McLeod <cdnrailmarine@...>
 

"Ah, but Dennis, suppose I shipped a box car of $100 bills to the bank,
and withdrew it again as pennies?"
 
Less the charge for transit - transit would be considered a priviledge.
 
Ross McLeod Calgary
 

 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

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


Re: MD&S' / SAL's Magor Pulpwood Cars

John Degnan <Scaler164@...>
 

This would make perfect sense since (cents?) the SAL purchased controlling interest in the MD&S in 1907, and MD&S remained under SAL control until being absorbed (into SAL) in 1958... only two years after these cars were built (or there abouts).


John Degnan
JohnnyReb69@...

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 11:15 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: MD&S' / SAL's Magor Pulpwood Cars



According to Ed's book, the cars were purchased by the SAL but lettered
for MD&S. Unfortunately there is no photo. They were Lot W-3689. Also
listed as SAL purchased, MD&S lettered, are gondolas 4000-4009 built
11-1956, just one month before the pulpwood cars.

Tim O'Connor


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

Dave Nelson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote:

It would be a very interesting fact to find out: For each railroad,
what percentage of loads ORIGINATED on that railroad also TERMINATED
on that railroad?

Tim, the numbers seem to be all over the place.

Rutland in 1950 had 1.96% of all cars handled were purly local traffic and a
third of that seems to be LCL.
Western Pacific in 1950 had 11.5% of all cars handled as purely local
traffic and about 40% of those cars moved gravel.
Rio Grande in 1948 saw 23.57% of all cars handled as purely local traffic;
about 40% of those cars were carring minerals (coal)... and about a quarter
were used for Products of Mfg... But digging into the details it's iron
pipe, gasoline, automobiles, manufactured steel (e.g., coil, beams, etc)
before finally getting down to something clearly in ordinary boxcars: canned
food, which was ~ 11% of all local shipments. So what is that... 2% of all
cars handled?
Santa Fe in 1956 had 35.08% of all cars handled were purly local traffic...
A quarter of those each to Products of Mines and Products of Agriculture and
a third to Products of Mfg. Of the later category, I see ~10% of those cars
were tank cars (e.g., gasoline, lube oil), 5% cement... The remaining 85%
scattered all over... Steel, houshold goods, fetilizer, scrap metal,
whatever.

I dunno if you can see a regional pattern but to my eye it looks very much
like it's telling us whatever happened to be big business on each specific
route... As well, perhaps, why the percentages of the types of owned home
road cars were what why were (e.g., why the Rio Grande had lots of GS gons
on no ventilator boxcars).

Dave Nelson


N&W trackside signs in HO

Jim King
 

If there is enough interest, I will produce resin castings of the whistle
post and "no trespassing" signs (and others, if requested) in HO. They
would consist of a cast duplicate of code 70 rail (for the post) and targets
with raised lettering (if possible) that would be highlighted with a
permanent black market. If text is too small to create using the rapid
prototyping process, decals will be used instead.



Let me know what interest you have in these (and other) N&W signs.



Jim King

Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc.

Ph. (828) 777-5619

<www.smokymountainmodelworks.com>


Re: "Tar Paper " and "Mule Hyde" Roofs

WILLIAM PARDIE
 

Victor;

I came across an "O" scale list that recommended Johnson and Johnson
paper tape (for bandages). I bought some but have not as yet tried it.
Also tissue set into fresh paint or oversprayed with paint.

Bill Pardie
On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:19 AM, jerryglow@... wrote:

On some brass cabooses, I stippled on artists acrylics to get a
textured surface. Works well for tarred roofs on buildings too, in
fact, that's how I started using the technique.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "wabash2813" <reporterllc@...> wrote:

Assuming that some wood freight cars and cabooses had roofs not
unlike that on passenger cars, what techniques and materials are you
all using to model that?

Victor Baird
Fort Wayne, Indiana



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


Re: Milling in Transit

soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
 

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

Dennis,

Could you please expand upon this topic?

For example, who is it that has his wheat milled in transit: the farmer, or some intermediate elevator? Is the "milling in transit" done between the grain elevator and flour consumer (e.g. bakery)?

You imply that the exact same boxcar gets used for the flour as was used for the grain. Is this always the case, or was that a simplification?

Thanks much,

-Jeff
I'm getting near the fringes of my knowledge, but I'll start, and someone who knows more can chime in and correct anything I've mis-interpreted.

Milling in transit appears to pre-date the formation of the ICC. In the rough-and-tumble pre-regulatory days it was a way railroads could induce millers to locate on their line; offer a single through rate from source to customer. It appears to be the reason that both the M &St.L and Soo Line were built; the millers in Minneapolis were tired of paying two local rates to move grain in and then ship flour out, when the same RR's they were shipping on were offering better rates to mills located further east. The Minneapolis milling interests started building a railroad to St. Louis, but lost control, they later started two other lines, the Minneapolis & Pacific to bring grain in from the west, and the Minneapolis, Sault Ste. Marie & Atlantic to ship flour to the east. When these roads were finished, they were consolidated into the Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie. Then Pillsbury and the other Minneapolis Millers could also enjoy the the advantages of milling in transit.

Since this was the entrenched way that the flour trade was being conducted, it continued under ICC regulation; the tariffs were published, and all the ICC concerned itself with is that the rates were equally available to all.

Who was the Shipper? As I understand it, it was the miller, who bought the grain delivered at the elevator, and paid the freight from there to the customer, with the priveledge of a stop-off to mill it into flour somewhere along the way. The combined rate was less than the sum of the local inbound rate on grain and local outbound rate on flour; it was advantageous to the railroad as it gave them a longer haul on grain that was captive to their line.

Did it have to be the same car? I'm not sure, but I don't think so. I think most tariffs had a provision for changing the cars en route; there are instances of railroads who would reload coal into home road cars back in the days when labor was cheap.

In reality, it may well have often been a paper transaction, with fifty tons of inbound grain simply matched with fifty tons of outbound flour for billing purposes. You will notice the 1890 newspaper article I linked to concerns itself in part with the outbound loads being heavier than the inbounds :-)
However, since the same class of car was used for both grain and flour, back in the day, I would suspect that from track side, it looked like the same cars being used.

Dennis


Re: Box/auto distribution 1938

Tim O'Connor
 

I'm sure I don't need to point out 1949 was a very different year
than 1938, in which the US economy was still deep in recession.
Yes, of course. I would expect therefore that there would have been fewer trains per day in 1938 than in 1949, which would raise my percentages. If you have data showing that the Great Depression led to more trains across Wyoming, I would like to see it. Or if you have better data than Mark provided, please make that public.

It has nothing to do with the number of trains Larry. Tim Gilbert
pointed out that the percentage of home road cars staying on-line
greatly increased throughout the depression years, and so the
distribution of cars nationwide was quite different in 1949 than
in 1938. The more-or-less uniform distribution of plain box cars
is far more apparent in the late 1940's than in the late 1930's.
The year 1938 was a severe recession. Industrial output declined
sharply. I assume that means there were a lot fewer PRR and other
eastern cars on the SP and UP than would be in normal economic
times.

You say your data show "dominance" of SP cars -- but isn't it just
201 or so SP cars in 34 random trains over a period of a month? Now,
that might show "dominance" but it might just also be random luck.
If the UP ran 3 trains a day, I'd say that was a great sample. But
even if UP only ran 20 trains a day... Well, it's not much to go on.

Tim O'

105941 - 105960 of 195694