Date   

Re: Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses -

asychis@...
 

Tony writes: "If you really think this about Jay Gould, you need to read
Maury Klein's bio of Gould, which explodes many of the tired and
inaccurate jibes directed at Jay for decades."

I strongly agree, Klein's book is a must read.

As to the question at hand, there might not have been a "Gould Standard",
but boy oh boy were some of those cabooses built with similar features.
MP, Wabash, T&P, D&RG and WP all had cabooses of similar design, although as
others have said, they were not Model "T's" rolling off a production line.

Jerry Michels


Re: What tank cars would be most appropriate . . .

Bruce Smith
 

On Jun 22, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Jim Betz wrote:
P.S. Finding appropriate cars for pre-WWII freight cars - even
just box cars - can be an exercise in frustration control.
Some times it is even difficult to find an "adequate stand
in" for anything before 1935. Or decals.
Jim,

HUH? Perhaps in RTR, but in kits? Can you say "Westerfield"?! <VBG> And Sunshine, F&C, Speedwitch, Red Caboose, P2K Bowser... etc After all, many of the cars for my 1944 date are pre-war. There are a significant number of pre-1935 models available out there. This is true for stock cars, tank cars, reefers, hoppers, and gons as well (less so but still true for flats as well). Yes, there are some holes in the pre-1935 house-cars available, but the number of significant ones is pretty small.

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: [Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses

jerryglow2
 

MP's Magors and clones vary considerably in the end platform detail and steps as can be seen in my modified one:
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/more/Magor.html

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "cvlk" <cvlk@...> wrote:

The Magor design caboose that Atlas offers in HO and N is a mini-standard (PM, C&EI, C&O, MP) but AFAIK the PM, C&O and NKP didn't order any cars as a Van Sweringen "standard".
Morrison had a modular design steel caboose but the length, window arrangement, cupola/bay window/none, etc.. could be cusomized so that no two looked alike.... EJ&E and BRC are examples of how different they could look. Kato's "Shorty" caboose in N (Cambria & Indiana prototype was released; BRC transfer style was planned as was a bay window (LI) version but they were not).
Charlie Vlk

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: [Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses




The Van Sweringen roads didn't share any caboose designs?

At 6/21/2010 06:49 PM Monday, you wrote:
>The "Harriman" (UP CA, SP???) is the only "standard" wood caboose I am aware of.
>St. Charles car company built cars for the CB&Q, MP, CM, and others that were pretty much alike (like the Morrison-International "Wide Vision" cars are similar) but not identical.
>The so-called "USRA" wood caboose may be close but I haven't seen any study on the pedigree of that family to say if it qualifies as a "standard", even the steel version has about as many variations as the ATSF "1900" clones (WAB, Alton, CRR, etc..).
>Charlie Vlk





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


Re: GN ore jennies

ottokroutil
 

33" wheels it is then. Thanks to all who responded.
Regards, Otto


Re: alternative uses for ore hoppers

brianehni <behni@...>
 

While the time is way outside the scope of this group, SP used ore cars in the 70s for hauling gravel. Same might apply for use within the time scope of the group.

Brian Ehni

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Burgess" <jack@...> wrote:

Otto wrote:
<There is photographic evidence of GN jennies in ore service on Cajon
<Pass in California during the winter of 1951/52, carrrying Utah ore to
<Kaiser Steel in Fontana, Cal. I wonder whether this could have been a
<seasonal arrangement with the GN??? (We do know Santa Fe crews did not
<like the shorty cars with wheels protruding beyond the frames and the
<"arrangement" did not last too long).

After the closure of the Yosemite Portland Cement Company in 1944, the
Yosemite Valley Railroad sold their 51 ex-GN hopper cars (called rock cars
on the YV) to various other railroads including 32 which were sold to
Kaiser. Those would have been the ones in ore service on Cajon Pass....


Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: alternative uses for ore hoppers

Jack Burgess
 

Otto wrote:
<There is photographic evidence of GN jennies in ore service on Cajon
<Pass in California during the winter of 1951/52, carrrying Utah ore to
<Kaiser Steel in Fontana, Cal. I wonder whether this could have been a
<seasonal arrangement with the GN??? (We do know Santa Fe crews did not
<like the shorty cars with wheels protruding beyond the frames and the
<"arrangement" did not last too long).

After the closure of the Yosemite Portland Cement Company in 1944, the
Yosemite Valley Railroad sold their 51 ex-GN hopper cars (called rock cars
on the YV) to various other railroads including 32 which were sold to
Kaiser. Those would have been the ones in ore service on Cajon Pass....


Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses -

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Mike,

Yes, some of the differences were due to evolving technology. However, as I noted, there were big differences in some non-technological features, including the cupolas widths of cars built for different roads at fairly close dates. There was definitely a general commonality of some Gould-era equipment purchased for the MP, D&RG (no "W" yet), and WP. WP 4-6-0, 2-8-0 and 0-6-0 locomotives were virtually identical to contemporary D&RG purchases, except that most of the small WP fleet were oil burners. The same is true of cabooses. However, there does not seem to have been the careful standardization program by the Gould lines as was seen with the UP/SP and other Harriman roads.

Of course, all this equipment went through many rebuildings and upgrades, and the general designs were recycled for new equipment by several of the former Gould roads for many years. Even more interesting/confusing are pre-Gould cabooses that were rebuilt as "Gould" designs by both the WP and D&RG. (This might have been similar to what Tony mentions in his PFE books as "jacking up the number and rolling a new car under it".) This can get really confusing for a researcher who lacks access to the original plans and specs of equipment (which is most of us railfans).

I will have to check on those 1909 H&B WP cars with steel center sills. I think the general equipment drawings I have specify wooden underframes, but maybe the sills themselves were always steel. Hmmmm.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

mbcarson2002 wrote:

Garth,

Although there may not have been a "formal" Gould standard for much of anything and if the results of my research is any indication, I'll suggest the Gould family (Jay & later George) practiced an extractive management style where the stockholder dividend was paramount and every thing else secondary. And towards the end, circa 1910-1911, George Gould couldn't borrow any additional monies, as his railroads had turned into "streaks of rust" as the result of deferred maintenance and had little prospect of generating profits without significant investments of capital.

The caboose examples, you cite, I'll suggest are a result of evolving technology & a changing regulatory environment.

The Eric Neubauer, Pullman-Standard Freight Car Production, copyright 2002, has a section enumerating Haskell & Barker car production prior to P-S purchase of H&B. And listed are two orders of steel center sill cabooses in 1909; one order from the Western Pacific (50 examples) and a second from the Denver & Rio Grande (10 examples). I have yet to discover photographs of these orders.

Regards, Mike Carson

PS. Incidentally, I appreciate your Sacramento Northern website, which through the SN association with the Western Pacific brought me to the subject of Gould cabooses.
--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Garth G. Groff" <ggg9y@...> wrote:

Mike,

Most of the Gould roads used similar equipment designs, especially with locomotives. Cabooses seem to have followed similar, but NOT identical, designs from at least around 1898 (MP, AC&F-built IIRC) into the 1920s (WP post-Gould homebuilts). There were differences in almost every order. In general Gould-road cabooses had the same body design, three windows per side in the same positions, and wide platforms with tender-type steps. Roofs and cupolas, however, varied quite a bit, and underframes evolved from all wood to composite with steel center sills, bolsters and needle beams.

As for the phrase "Gould standard", there was no such thing. I know, because I originated the term, and wish I never had. I used to put it in quotes with a lower case "s", but it has migrated into otherwise well-researched railfan books and is treated as an official term. Bad, bad, bad.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff


Re: What tank cars would be most appropriate . . .

Garth G. Groff <ggg9y@...>
 

Jim,

This is definitely a great idea. In fact, since our new friend is interested in the upper midwest, the Delano photos and others found at http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html would be a great start. Many of these photos (some of which we've discussed before) feature tank cars, and almost always give specific dates and locations.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

Jim Betz wrote:

Hi,

Why not start with photos of trains/yards taken in your era(s) and in your area(s) - and if possible even taken on your RR? With just the date and the reporting marks (RR, not number) you should
be able to then go to the appropriate ORER(s) and get car number ranges and other useful data. And probably also fill in some 'likely alternatives' you didn't find a picture of ...
Don't necessarily limit your self too much - a pic of a tank car in Chicago is likely to 'work' for a layout based upon say Dayton
or Minneapolis ... Perhaps you will need to go back and recheck the photos after
you have studied the ORER(s).
Wheel reports would be nice - if you have them ...

Armed with the above - you should be able to make reasonable choices and/or ask better questions (which result in better/more
useful answers).

- Research can be both addictive and fun ... Jim

P.S. Finding appropriate cars for pre-WWII freight cars - even just box cars - can be an exercise in frustration control. Some times it is even difficult to find an "adequate stand in" for anything before 1935. Or decals.



Re: GN ore jennies

gary laakso
 

All of the ore car diagrams in the 1948 edition of the Great Northern Freight Car Diagrams show 33" wheels.

gary laakso
south of Mike Brock
vasa0vasa@earthlink.net

----- Original Message -----
From: ottokroutil
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 6/22/2010 12:43:37 AM
Subject: [STMFC] GN ore jennies



I am about to upgrade the wheels on my string of GN ore cars. Looking at photos, the wheels under 40's era GN ore jennies look larger than 33". Is this an optical illusion because of the diminuitive size of these cars, or did they ride on 36" wheels???
Thanks for any help, Otto Kroutil


Re: GN ore jennies

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

otto kroutil wrote:
I am about to upgrade the wheels on my string of GN ore cars. Looking at photos, the wheels under 40's era GN ore jennies look larger than 33". Is this an optical illusion because of the diminuitive size of these cars, or did they ride on 36" wheels???
I'd bet on the illusion. Same thing happens with small tank cars, which at first glance appear to ride on enormous trucks.

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: Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses -

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Mike Carson wrote:
I'll suggest the Gould family (Jay & later George) practiced an extractive management style where the stockholder dividend was paramount and every thing else secondary.
If you really think this about Jay Gould, you need to read Maury Klein's bio of Gould, which explodes many of the tired and inaccurate jibes directed at Jay for decades. George, on the other hand, appears to have been either incompetent or consumed with visions of impossible glory. There's little evidence George generated much in the way of dividends to anyone but himself.

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: GN ore jennies

Staffan Ehnbom <staffan.ehnbom@...>
 

According to GN diagrams: 33".

Staffan Ehnbom

----- Original Message -----
From: ottokroutil
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:41 AM
Subject: [STMFC] GN ore jennies



I am about to upgrade the wheels on my string of GN ore cars. Looking at photos, the wheels under 40's era GN ore jennies look larger than 33". Is this an optical illusion because of the diminuitive size of these cars, or did they ride on 36" wheels???
Thanks for any help, Otto Kroutil


Re: What tank cars would be most appropriate . . .

Jim Betz
 

Hi,

Why not start with photos of trains/yards taken in your era(s)
and in your area(s) - and if possible even taken on your RR? With
just the date and the reporting marks (RR, not number) you should
be able to then go to the appropriate ORER(s) and get car number
ranges and other useful data. And probably also fill in some
'likely alternatives' you didn't find a picture of ...
Don't necessarily limit your self too much - a pic of a tank car
in Chicago is likely to 'work' for a layout based upon say Dayton
or Minneapolis ...
Perhaps you will need to go back and recheck the photos after
you have studied the ORER(s).
Wheel reports would be nice - if you have them ...

Armed with the above - you should be able to make reasonable
choices and/or ask better questions (which result in better/more
useful answers).

- Research can be both addictive and fun ... Jim

P.S. Finding appropriate cars for pre-WWII freight cars - even
just box cars - can be an exercise in frustration control.
Some times it is even difficult to find an "adequate stand
in" for anything before 1935. Or decals.


Re: Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses -

mbcarson2002
 

Garth,

Although there may not have been a "formal" Gould standard for much of anything and if the results of my research is any indication, I'll suggest the Gould family (Jay & later George) practiced an extractive management style where the stockholder dividend was paramount and every thing else secondary. And towards the end, circa 1910-1911, George Gould couldn't borrow any additional monies, as his railroads had turned into "streaks of rust" as the result of deferred maintenance and had little prospect of generating profits without significant investments of capital.

The caboose examples, you cite, I'll suggest are a result of evolving technology & a changing regulatory environment.

The Eric Neubauer, Pullman-Standard Freight Car Production, copyright 2002, has a section enumerating Haskell & Barker car production prior to P-S purchase of H&B. And listed are two orders of steel center sill cabooses in 1909; one order from the Western Pacific (50 examples) and a second from the Denver & Rio Grande (10 examples). I have yet to discover photographs of these orders.

Regards, Mike Carson

PS. Incidentally, I appreciate your Sacramento Northern website, which through the SN association with the Western Pacific brought me to the subject of Gould cabooses.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Garth G. Groff" <ggg9y@...> wrote:

Mike,

Most of the Gould roads used similar equipment designs, especially with
locomotives. Cabooses seem to have followed similar, but NOT identical,
designs from at least around 1898 (MP, AC&F-built IIRC) into the 1920s
(WP post-Gould homebuilts). There were differences in almost every
order. In general Gould-road cabooses had the same body design, three
windows per side in the same positions, and wide platforms with
tender-type steps. Roofs and cupolas, however, varied quite a bit, and
underframes evolved from all wood to composite with steel center sills,
bolsters and needle beams.

As for the phrase "Gould standard", there was no such thing. I know,
because I originated the term, and wish I never had. I used to put it in
quotes with a lower case "s", but it has migrated into otherwise
well-researched railfan books and is treated as an official term. Bad,
bad, bad.

Kind regards,


Garth Groff

mbcarson2002 wrote:
Hello, List;

I recently have been investigating the later Gould Railroads. Mullet River Models (MRM) has recently released a Western Pacific Caboose, that is stipulated to be a Gould Standard Wooden Caboose. A series of Google searches lends credence to the stipulation. Other Gould system railroads were the Missouri Pacific, the Wabash, the Denver & Rio Grande, the Western Pacific & subsidiary roads.

Visually, a photograph of Western Pacific 764 matches the MRM kit, photographs of Missouri Pacific 333 - 369 series cabooses in Michels "Cabooses of The Missouri Pacific Lines", and the drawings and pictures in the Car Builders Dictionaries of 1916 and 1919. Plans in Mainline Modeler Volume I Number 4 (Sept/Oct 1980) suggest other Gould lines acquired similar, if not identical, cabooses.

Both the Car Builders Dictionaries and the Michels book give AC&F in 1911, as the builder of record.

Can anyone provide additional information, such as build lot numbers or details on other operators?

TIA, Mike Carson


GN ore jennies

ottokroutil
 

I am about to upgrade the wheels on my string of GN ore cars. Looking at photos, the wheels under 40's era GN ore jennies look larger than 33". Is this an optical illusion because of the diminuitive size of these cars, or did they ride on 36" wheels???
Thanks for any help, Otto Kroutil


Re: alternative uses for ore hoppers

ottokroutil
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gn3397" <heninger@...> wrote:

Group,
Just to add a couple of comments on ore cars as used on the GN:
Not only did the ore cars spend half their active life running empty,
they spent half the year sitting idle, as the shipping (no pun
intended) season for ore ran from approximately April to Oct/Nov during
much of the steam era.

On the GN, the ore "jennies", as they were called, were also pressed
into service for the sugar beet rush during the late fall/early winter
timeframe. Of course, they were inefficient, but when GN was short of
GS gons or hoppers, they were used. I haven't been able to find photos
from the steam era, but I have personally witnessed this on BN (ex-GN)
trackage around Grand Forks, ND in the early eighties timeframe.

Sincerely,
Robert D. Heninger
Stanley, ND
There is photographic evidence of GN jennies in ore service on Cajon Pass in California during the winter of 1951/52, carrrying Utah ore to Kaiser Steel in Fontana, Cal. I wonder whether this could have been a seasonal arrangement with the GN??? (We do know Santa Fe crews did not like the shorty cars with wheels protruding beyond the frames and the "arrangement" did not last too long).

Regards, Otto Kroutil


Re: [Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses

Charlie Vlk
 

Tony-
I thought it was a CA on the SP as well, but only looked at the UP info in the near past so wasn't totally sure.
Thanks,
Charlie


Charlie Vlk wrote:
> The "Harriman" (UP CA, SP???) is the only "standard" wood caboose I
> am aware of.

As you might guess, Charlie, it was a Class CA car on both SP and
UP, since it was an Associated Lines standard.

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: [Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses

Charlie Vlk
 

The Magor design caboose that Atlas offers in HO and N is a mini-standard (PM, C&EI, C&O, MP) but AFAIK the PM, C&O and NKP didn't order any cars as a Van Sweringen "standard".
Morrison had a modular design steel caboose but the length, window arrangement, cupola/bay window/none, etc.. could be cusomized so that no two looked alike.... EJ&E and BRC are examples of how different they could look. Kato's "Shorty" caboose in N (Cambria & Indiana prototype was released; BRC transfer style was planned as was a bay window (LI) version but they were not).
Charlie Vlk

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 21, 2010 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: [Gould Railroad Standard Wooden Cabooses




The Van Sweringen roads didn't share any caboose designs?

At 6/21/2010 06:49 PM Monday, you wrote:
>The "Harriman" (UP CA, SP???) is the only "standard" wood caboose I am aware of.
>St. Charles car company built cars for the CB&Q, MP, CM, and others that were pretty much alike (like the Morrison-International "Wide Vision" cars are similar) but not identical.
>The so-called "USRA" wood caboose may be close but I haven't seen any study on the pedigree of that family to say if it qualifies as a "standard", even the steel version has about as many variations as the ATSF "1900" clones (WAB, Alton, CRR, etc..).
>Charlie Vlk


Re: What tank cars would be most appropriate . . .

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jun 21, 2010, at 1:51 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:
I have the A. E. Staley corn syrup car in the orange paint scheme.
The car has a built date of 1920... but the tiny lettering on the
right side has a stencil date of 1953. So I know that car is ok for
me. A 1920's version of the same car probably was black.
There was a silver Staley scheme too, IIRC. I think Drake did it
on their brass GATC 8k car--possibly valid.
As it happens, I supplied photos and data for the Drake brass tank
cars as well, and the 8K GATC Type 30 AESX model in aluminum with
black stenciling was, like the others, based on photographic
evidence. The aluminum and black scheme was the company standard for
Staley cars in the 1930s and '40s until the orange scheme began to
appear in the early 1950s. It's worth noting that the Staley tank
car fleet was operated for them under AESX reporting marks by the
North American Car Corp.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: What tank cars would be most appropriate for roads operating around Chicago...

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Tim O'Connor
. . . And the earlier cars looked very
different, since many (most?) of them had radial rivet seams
(around the diameter of the tank) instead of horizontal seams
like the ACF Types 21 and 27.

----- Original Message -----

This is one of those annoying misnomers that probably bugs me as much "Bettendorf trucks", "outside framed boxcar", or "PRR X-29 boxcar" does others. (*)

There are three directions on a cylinder: axial/longitudinal, radial, and tangential/circumferential. Most riveted tank cars have longitudinal seams, some had circumferential seams. The only radial seams would be those caused by making the heads out of multiple pieces. Some have suggested that radial refers to the direction of the rivet axes on circumferentially seamed cars, but that would be true for longitudinal seams as well.

Oh well.

KL

(*) I take that back. There is very little in my life that causes me to react to the extent that some people do when reading these terms.

97001 - 97020 of 187977