Date   

Re: Foreign Road Stock Cars

Dave Nelson
 

Think about the paperwork for a sec: Farmer Brown puts his 30 steers in the
hands of the SP for transit to the public stockyards in Salt Lake City.
Less than 28 hours later, the SP stops an unloads Farmer Brown's steers for
rest. Once unloaded, how do they know which 30 (nice and fat) steers are
Brown's... and not those 30 old, scrawny, dried up dairy cows Jones has
shipped? Probably the waybill. Some kind of paperwork has to go with the
steers; they have to be in their own pen; they have to continue to their
intended destination. Something has to be done to link Brown's shipment
with the pen Brown's steers are in. No other way would ensure Brown gets
the right auction price in SLC. Does that particular paperwork include the
Car Initial and Number? I dunno, but I'll bet it does. I would imagine
what is used is the waybill. After all, Brown was there when his steers
were loaded; he, like most other consignors, checked his car and was
satisfied *that* car was good.

Rest time has passed and Brown's steers are reloaded. Which is easier for
the people doing the work -- put the steers into the same car as they
arrived OR put them in any car and mess with the waybill (copy to Brown?)?
I'll wager it is the former, just as Schuyler describes, below. It's just
easier.

Dave Nelson

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of
Schuyler Larrabee

The question about whether stock would be unloaded from one car for rest and
watering, then loaded onto another road's car for further movement, was
discussed in detail on some list recently; I thought it was this one, but
perhaps not. At any rate, it was established that the >common< procedure
was to reload the stock back into the same car they arrived in, but that in
the meantime, while the stock was being rested and watered, the car would
also be cleaned out and resupplied with fresh bedding, water and whatever
else the stock required for the rest of the journey. Only in the event of a
car failing some inspection and being taken out of service would the stock
be reloaded into another line's cars.



When you think about it, this only makes sense, as the cars required a "rest
stop" as much as the stock did.

SGL


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@..., guycwilber@... wrote:

Greg Martin wrote:
<<By AAR interchange rules the cars were not to be interchanged (or accepted at interchange) but the fines would be levied to the Home Road for allowing the crew to interchange the car.


By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.


Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada
Along the same lines of inquiry, *if* fines were levied by whatever procedures were in place, it would be quite the find if records were still extant for the 1945-1960 period that showed how many times the NYC was fined for Pacemaker cars off home rails with deficient reporting marks.

From what I've read, the decision in 1955 to start painting full reporting marks on shopped Pacemaker cars might have been because of several reasons. One might have been flack the Central received for cars that had, for whatever reason, drifted off home rails with insufficient reporting marks. There is also the 1954 takeover of Central management by the Young/Perlman team. Al Perlman was interested in going in a different direction i.e. Flexi-van. Then, there is also the fact that the whole Pacemaker service concept had never met initial revenue expectations - every section of Interstate highway that opened was another nail in its coffin.

The 1955 decision might very well have been taken from a combination of all these reasons.

By 1960 with the program to mass renumber the 74000 series cars back in to the general boxcar pool, the Central was totally committed to the Flexi-van route for this sort of traffic.

Under Perlman, cars that still had an adequate paint job were, generally speaking, not going to be repainted just for "show". Perlman was more interested in results than appearances, and definitely *not* interested in wasting money for nothing. So the Pacemaker scheme lasted a long time after Pacemaker service itself had been discontinued.

Jim Yaworsky


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

It's more a matter of what "they" are missisng: an understanding of intelectual property laws, particularly with regard to copyrights. Not uncommon, unfortunately. In the military vehicle world there are several libraries claiming copyright to photographs that have the US Army Signal Corps emblem in the corner!

(Government photographs are "born" in the public domain. It's not that the Government claims copyright and lets us use it free, it's that they are not protectable at all.)

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: pullmanboss

I work with the Newberry Library and am very familiar with their fee structure and terms of use. I have redrawn a multitude of floor plan, underneath equipment and side elevation drawings from Pullman originals in the Newberry files and am not in violation of the Newberry's terms of use when those (re)drawings show up in kit instructions. What am I missing when it comes to the NYCHS?


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

Guy Wilber
 

Greg Martin wrote:




<<By AAR interchange rules the cars were not to be interchanged (or accepted at interchange) but the fines would be levied to the Home Road for allowing the crew to interchange the car. If the fines were levied they would be minor for the first infraction. There was always the UMLER or ORER to define the car more clearly once offline.>>



By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.



Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada











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


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

pullmanboss <tcmadden@...>
 

Denis Blake:

Let me pipe in here if I can. I work with WrightTRAK and we
were looking at doing a project, a NYC car. I contacted the
NYCHS and was told, yes, they have the drawings we are looking
for. We would have to purchase the CD set, I don't remember
what that cost was, but it was NOT cheap. This set included
all sorts of information that we did not need. Then they said
that because we were using information gathered from them that
we would be limited to the amount of product we could produce
from those drawings.
That makes no sense. I have no problem with institutions charging whatever they want for access to or copies of their information, and I certainly understand royalty fees based on publication quantity - when you publish original drawings or photos. But when you use original drawings or photos only as reference materials to produce models, I don't see how the holding institution can restrict the "amount of product".

I work with the Newberry Library and am very familiar with their fee structure and terms of use. I have redrawn a multitude of floor plan, underneath equipment and side elevation drawings from Pullman originals in the Newberry files and am not in violation of the Newberry's terms of use when those (re)drawings show up in kit instructions. What am I missing when it comes to the NYCHS?

Tom Madden


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

Guy Wilber
 

<<The reason I asked, a couple of nights back, about the exact stencilling requirements for interchange, had to do with the Sisk photo referenced earlier in this thread. The car has reporting marks, load limit, light weight, and nothing else: no capacity, no dimensional data, no dates. The picture was taken, the caption says, in 1948 in Kansas City. The NYC doesn't go to KC, so the car is off line. >>


All interchanged cars were to meet the stenciling requirements within Interchange Rules 3, 30, and 86. All cars were also subject to the requirements of the Operating-Transportation Department of the ARA and AAR (post 1934). This includes all provisions within the Car Service Rules and The Standards of The Lettering and Markings of Cars within the Manual of Standard and Recommended Practice of the Association often referenced within the Interchange Rules.


The following entries are from the 1956 Interchange Rules. Though renumbered (several times), the first three paragraphs of Rule 3 are essentially the same as from 1933 forward. Paragraph 7 was added in 1953 with an effective date of January 1, 1955, and Paragraph 8 was added in 1955. Rules 30 and 86 are as they were from the late 1920s with some modifications throughout the years. If you have specific time period questions regarding modifications they can be answered.


INTERCHANGE RULES (Effective January 1, 1956):


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (4) Stenciling: Date built new, month and year, or badge plate giving this information, required on all cars. Date rebuilt, in addition to date built new, month and year or badge plate giving this information, required on all cars rebuilt on or after July 1, 1928. From owners. In event tank and underframe of tank car are built at different times each must bear distinctive dates, the dates on underframe to be date underframe (including trucks) was built new.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (5) Stenciling: Light weight and capacity in pounds, as provided in Rules 30 and 86, required on all cars. In Interchange. Tank cars and live poultry cars shall be reweighed and remarked by the owners or their authorized representatives.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (6) Stenciling: Load limit markings, as provided in Rule 30, required all cars except tank cars and live poultry cars. In Interchange.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (7) Stenciling: Car initials and numbers required on one side of each truck bolster. From Owners.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (8) Stenciling: All car initials and numbers per pages L-37 through L-39-D of Manual of Standard and Recommended Practice must be legible. From Owners.


Rule 30, Section (F)--Stenciling.


Paragraph (1) Should be in accordance with AAR Standards for Marking and Lettering of Cars.


Paragraph (2) Station symbol and date (month and year) must be stenciled on cars when new and each time re-weighed and re-stenciled. On new cars the word "new" may be substituted for station symbol.


Paragraph (3) When cars are re-stenciled after re-weighing, all old stenciling to be renewed must be obliterated with quick drying paint. It will be necessary only to renew all light-weight numerals, station symbol, date (month and year), and load limit numerals except as provided in Paragraph 6, section (F). The capacity numeral and letters "CAPY", "LD LMT", and "LT WT", when indistinct, must be renewed. light weight stenciling on ends of cars is not permitted and when shown must be obliterated.


Paragraph (4) The light weight stenciling shall be the multiple of 100 lbs. nearest the scale weight, except that when the scale weight indicates an even 50 lbs. the lower multiple shall be used.


Paragraph (5) The LOAD LIMIT, which is the difference between the light weight and the maximum weight on rail, as shown in table in AAR Interchange Rule 86, shall be initially stenciled on all cars (except tank and live poultry cars) by the car owner. The "load limit" is the permissible weight of the lading, including weight of temporary fixtures, also brine and ice in refrigerator cars. Stenciled load limit must not be more than nominal capacity.


Paragraph (6) When account structural limitations or other reasons, car owner has reduced the load limit of a car, a star symbol (*), the size of which shall conform to standard lettering for "LD LMT" shall be placed at immediate left of words "LD LMT", and when thus designated the load limit shall be changed only be the car owner.


Paragraph (7) The NOMINAL CAPACITY in multiples of 1,000 pounds, shall be initially stenciled on car by car owner and must not exceed the stenciled load limit.


Paragraph (8) The CUBIC CAPACITY shall be initially stenciled on cars, by car owner, except that such markings are not required on flat, tank, and live poultry cars.


Rule 86, Section (a), Paragraph (4) All cars to have their light weight and capacity in pounds stenciled on them, as per Section (s), Paragraph (5), Rule 3. Load limit markings are also required on all cars, except tank cars and live poultry cars, as provided in Rule 30.




<<The car-service rules in the 1/43 and 1/53 ORERs state what's supposed to be stencilled, but don't explicitly say what's required for interchange. I don't have a copy of the interchange rules; the group archives yield several comments that "weights" were to be stencilled, but I haven't found a firm statement as to *which* weights. I seek wisdom: does the car in Sisk's photo conform to the requirements, or not?>>


The NYC car in question does not conform to the provisions of the Interchange Rules.



Regards,


Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada











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


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - 175000 vs 174000 #s

James Yaworsky
 

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

Just to add some more to the picture:

The series 174000-174999 is listed in the 1953, 1955, 1959, and 1963
Equipment Registers with 50,000 lbs capacity! [snip] drops to 7 cars in 1963!! So clearly
the NYC either got rid of the cars between 1959 and 1963, or reassigned
them to another series.

However, the series 175025-175999 which I think were also Lot 737-B are
all listed with 110,000 lbs capacity. And this series remained populated
in the 1963 and 1965 ORER's. It makes me think that the "Pacemaker" cars
174000-174999 were somehow quite different. Was it just the trucks, or
some other factor?

Tim O'Connor
The 174000 series cars were "assigned" to Pacemaker service. When they were removed from Pacemaker service, they were renumbered by changing the "4" to a "5". There is at least one picture extant that shows the "5" as obviously the only altered number on the CASO website - a quick and minimal renumbering job if there ever was one!

So the 175000 cars are just renumbered 174000 cars. At the same time, most if not all of them had the light "cushion" springs from their "LCL" assignment days replaced with regular springs so they would be available in the general boxcar pool.

Jim Yaworsky


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Denis Blake" <dblake7@...> wrote:

Let me pipe in here if I can. I work with WrightTRAK and we were looking at
doing a project, a NYC car. I contacted the NYCHS [snip] Needless to say that
project did NOT get done. This is by far the most restrictive policy that
we have ever come across. In this instance it cost NYC modelers a car that
we are certain would have been well received and it badly needed.

Denis Blake
WrightTRAK Railroad Models.

This is distressing to hear and as a member of the NYCSHS all I can say is I don't believe the general membership of the Society knew or would approve of the way this was handled.

I am reporting it to some of the "modeler-friendly" executive members and intend to do everything I can to see nothing like this ever happens again.

Jim Yaworsky


Re: Tichy Rebuilt boxcar question

jerryglow2
 

It's on my modeling page: http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/modeling/SLSF_rebuilt.html Charlie recently asked me to do the decals so they're availble now along with a set for a similar ACL rebuild.

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals.html

--- In STMFC@..., Craig Zeni <clzeni@...> wrote:

Jerry, didn't you have photos of that car? I have a couple of the
Tichy cars and think this would make a great project for one of them...

--
Craig Zeni
Cary NC

"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...


______________________________________________________________________
__
4e. Re: Tichy Rebuilt boxcar question
Posted by: "jerryglow@..." jerryglow@...
jerryglow2
Date: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:30 pm ((PDT))

I cut it off and replaced it with sheet and strip stock for mine.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie D modeling the Mopac http://
mopac51.tripod" <omahaduck@> wrote:

Jerry - if I can sand off the Tichy kit's roof without too much
damage I'll use the new Frisco decals you just sent me. I'd
rather have a Frisco car than another P&LE on the layout.

Charlie Duckworth

--- In STMFC@..., jerryglow@ wrote:

If it's unbuilt it makes a good basis for a Frisco 8 panel USRA
rebuild from a DS car. I just did decals for it in 3 versions
(with and w/o "Lines" in a small herald and large herald with
Frisco Fast Freight on the right. The latter started being
applied approx late '52 with possibility of the others esp w/o
"Lines" in '54.

The ACL set is also good for the same bash.

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals.html

--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@> wrote:
Unfortunately, these cars were never relettered for NYC, and
other NYC rebuilt boxcars differed in height and ends. However,
Sunshine did mini-kits (Jim Hayes Number "MK-15B", consisting of
ends, center sill, decals) converting this model to Wabash
82000-82513 boxcars equipped with auto racks. This conversion
could also be the basis for similar Wabash DS boxcar rebuilds -
see my rebuilt boxcar spreadsheet in the files section for more
Wabash possibilities.


Ben Hom


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@..., Andy Harman <gsgondola@...> wrote:
Is interest in the NYC in general passe'? Even as a kid, I thought of the
NYC as the "Gray Suits" of railroading - not flashy but all business,
elegant, and prosperous. I guess that doesn't translate to a modeling
interest.

Andy

You have expressed an interesting theory in a very concise and elegant matter, and as I read the "Gray Suits" sentence, I thought to myself that I've never come across a better one-liner to describe the essence of the NYC at many times in its fairly long history.

Of course, there were some not-so prosperous times, as well... Personally, I model Perlman's Road to the Future, fighting for its life, a bit run down but concentrating on the essentials and developing many innovative and exciting practices.

Also, it's hard to model 2 or 4 track mainline action in a reasonable space! It's not "quaint". No mountains. What "spectacular" scenery there is consists of massive items like a very large bridge across the wide and deep Niagara River gorge just north of the Falls etc.

However, do we really know how many layouts have actually been constructed for any given prototype railroad? How many NYC-themed model railroads exist? There's really no way of knowing, is there?

Jim Yaworsky


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

seaboard_1966
 

Let me pipe in here if I can. I work with WrightTRAK and we were looking at doing a project, a NYC car. I contacted the NYCHS and was told, yes, they have the drawings we are looking for. We would have to purchase the CD set, I don't remember what that cost was, but it was NOT cheap. This set included all sorts of information that we did not need. Then they said that because we were using information gathered from them that we would be limited to the amount of product we could produce from those drawings. If we wanted to produce more we were obligated to pay them what amounted to a royalty to do so. You gotta be friggin kidding me. Needless to say that project did NOT get done. This is by far the most restrictive policy that we have ever come across. In this instance it cost NYC modelers a car that we are certain would have been well received and it badly needed.

Denis Blake
WrightTRAK Railroad Models.



2011 Central Ohio Prototype Modelers Meet, May 19-21

http://www.facebook.com/pages/manage/#!/pages/Central-Ohio-Prototype-Modelers-Meet/326645470797

-----Original Message-----
From: James Yaworsky
Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 10:34 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

--- In STMFC@..., Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

James Yaworsky wrote:
"Disclaimer: as a NYC-focused modeler, I like to see manufacturers release
> NYC-specific models.

Hate to say it, James, but this state of affairs ain't going to happen until > NYC-focused modelers come out and actively support NYC-specific freight cars, > mot only through sales, but through demonstrating through publishing research > showing why NYC freight car prototypes are important, and actively pushing > prototypes through product development and cooperation with the manufacutrers.
[snip]
None of this appears to be of any interest to the NYCSHS -[snip]
You raise some interesting questions, Ben. I've been a member of the NYCSHS now for four years and am aware that it has a history of not being noted as "modeler-friendly". I'm not sure this is true today. It may have started off as mainly an ex-employee organization but obviously as time goes by, it has become less so. I think there are a lot of misconceptions floating around about it now. I believe the current leadership is making sincere and productive efforts to change those misconceptions.

I've certainly noticed the superior quality of many of the other railroad historical society web sites as regards the information available to modelers. The NYCSHS's main efforts have been focused on the quarterly newsletter, "Headlight", and there is a lot of good information along the lines you speak of in it. However, it's mainly members of the Society who benefit from it.

It appears to me that the NYCSHS's focus is much broader than the sorts of issues that would appeal to someone who is strictly a prototype model railroader. I started off with an interest in the NYC because it was the largest railroad in my home town, Windsor, Ontario; and because I was attracted by lightening stripes, Dreyfus Hudsons, and, yes, Pacemaker boxcars etc. At that stage, I knew little of the actual history of the railroad. For example, my only thoughts about Al Perlman were probably what a jerk he was for scrapping virtually all of the Central's steam locomotive fleet.

As I learned more about the "big picture" - how the Central system evolved, how it actually operated, what it accomplished, and how it ended up in Penn Central, my views about many things evolved and changed.

My views about Mr. Perlman certainly have changed considerably. The current issue of "Headlight" has a story by a man who started his career with the Central in its sales department under Perlman. I've never seen a more concise demonstration, based on this man's actual experiences, of why Perlman was a great railroad executive and how he turned the NYC from a stodgy "status quo" road in to a dynamic organization that had in many ways "turned the corner" and might very well have survived in some form if not for the Penn Central disaster. However, I must concede this article contains virtually nothing someone entirely focused on freight car details would find interesting... Despite this "defect", I confess I *still* found it a fascinating insight in to the NYC in the 1960's.

So, the NYCSHS is not just about models and model railroading. I imagine every railroad historical society will have a mix of goals, which will include a model railroader component. The mix of historic and modeler focus is perhaps more on "historical" rather than "modeler" in the NYCSHS than it is in the PRR or many other historical societies, but it is a mix that the current NYCSHS executive has identified as being desirable to shift towards more modeling info.

I know for a fact that NYCSHS members like Terry Link have been consulted by and actively assisted manufacturers on some of the NYCS-specific models that have come out the last few years.

Although I can certainly see that a large historical society pushing for a specific model might help attract a manufacturer's attention, it would seem to me that this is more important for supporters of smaller railroads than a giant like the NYC, Pennsylvania, Union Pacific, etc. Surely the manufacturers would realize that models from the giant railways are probably going to sell. Surely the manufacturers do more than just react to pressure from "special interest" groups. If NYCS items sell, surely manufacturers notice?

I'll
bet that there was little or no support provided by NYCSHS to the BLI NYC
USRA-design steel boxcar - the single most lacking model boxcar on any HO-scale
steam era layout.
I'm not so sure about that, but don't know for sure one way or the other. Unfortunately, the NYCSHS has not been adept at blowing its own horn. I do believe it is more active in these matters than is generally supposed. This belief is based on what people like Terry Link and Rich Stoving have told me.



With all due respect to Jeff English, Roger Hinman, and Terry Link, I just don't
see a whole lot of action from the NYC crowd. Ask yourself, James - why is
there so much available for the PRR models, and so little available for the NYC?


Ben Hom
It's certainly a valid question, Ben. I just don't know the exact situation to be able to comment with authority on it - but I'm not sure anybody else does, either. All I can say for sure is that Terry Link is a personal friend and I do know for an absolute fact he's been consulted on several of the projects that have come out in the last few years.

As for the pros and cons of the NYCSHS, that's a big topic and one that is "off-topic" for this group. All I would like to say to anyone who is interested in these issues is - check it out for yourself. There's too many rumours and innuendos floating around.

If you have an interest in the NYC and want to see changes in the NYCSHS, then the only way that's going to happen is if you *join* and start getting involved. In other words, don't just grouse about it - *do* something about it!

Jim Yaworsky






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

Yahoo! Groups Links









No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3516 - Release Date: 03/19/11 03:34:00


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC - NYCSHS

James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@..., Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

James Yaworsky wrote:
"Disclaimer: as a NYC-focused modeler, I like to see manufacturers release > NYC-specific models.

Hate to say it, James, but this state of affairs ain't going to happen until > NYC-focused modelers come out and actively support NYC-specific freight cars, > mot only through sales, but through demonstrating through publishing research > showing why NYC freight car prototypes are important, and actively pushing > prototypes through product development and cooperation with the manufacutrers. 
[snip]
None of this appears to be of any interest to the NYCSHS -[snip] 
You raise some interesting questions, Ben. I've been a member of the NYCSHS now for four years and am aware that it has a history of not being noted as "modeler-friendly". I'm not sure this is true today. It may have started off as mainly an ex-employee organization but obviously as time goes by, it has become less so. I think there are a lot of misconceptions floating around about it now. I believe the current leadership is making sincere and productive efforts to change those misconceptions.

I've certainly noticed the superior quality of many of the other railroad historical society web sites as regards the information available to modelers. The NYCSHS's main efforts have been focused on the quarterly newsletter, "Headlight", and there is a lot of good information along the lines you speak of in it. However, it's mainly members of the Society who benefit from it.

It appears to me that the NYCSHS's focus is much broader than the sorts of issues that would appeal to someone who is strictly a prototype model railroader. I started off with an interest in the NYC because it was the largest railroad in my home town, Windsor, Ontario; and because I was attracted by lightening stripes, Dreyfus Hudsons, and, yes, Pacemaker boxcars etc. At that stage, I knew little of the actual history of the railroad. For example, my only thoughts about Al Perlman were probably what a jerk he was for scrapping virtually all of the Central's steam locomotive fleet.

As I learned more about the "big picture" - how the Central system evolved, how it actually operated, what it accomplished, and how it ended up in Penn Central, my views about many things evolved and changed.

My views about Mr. Perlman certainly have changed considerably. The current issue of "Headlight" has a story by a man who started his career with the Central in its sales department under Perlman. I've never seen a more concise demonstration, based on this man's actual experiences, of why Perlman was a great railroad executive and how he turned the NYC from a stodgy "status quo" road in to a dynamic organization that had in many ways "turned the corner" and might very well have survived in some form if not for the Penn Central disaster. However, I must concede this article contains virtually nothing someone entirely focused on freight car details would find interesting... Despite this "defect", I confess I *still* found it a fascinating insight in to the NYC in the 1960's.

So, the NYCSHS is not just about models and model railroading. I imagine every railroad historical society will have a mix of goals, which will include a model railroader component. The mix of historic and modeler focus is perhaps more on "historical" rather than "modeler" in the NYCSHS than it is in the PRR or many other historical societies, but it is a mix that the current NYCSHS executive has identified as being desirable to shift towards more modeling info.

I know for a fact that NYCSHS members like Terry Link have been consulted by and actively assisted manufacturers on some of the NYCS-specific models that have come out the last few years.

Although I can certainly see that a large historical society pushing for a specific model might help attract a manufacturer's attention, it would seem to me that this is more important for supporters of smaller railroads than a giant like the NYC, Pennsylvania, Union Pacific, etc. Surely the manufacturers would realize that models from the giant railways are probably going to sell. Surely the manufacturers do more than just react to pressure from "special interest" groups. If NYCS items sell, surely manufacturers notice?

I'll
bet that there was little or no support provided by NYCSHS to the BLI NYC
USRA-design steel boxcar - the single most lacking model boxcar on any HO-scale
steam era layout.
I'm not so sure about that, but don't know for sure one way or the other. Unfortunately, the NYCSHS has not been adept at blowing its own horn. I do believe it is more active in these matters than is generally supposed. This belief is based on what people like Terry Link and Rich Stoving have told me.



With all due respect to Jeff English, Roger Hinman, and Terry Link, I just don't
see a whole lot of action from the NYC crowd.  Ask yourself, James - why is
there so much available for the PRR models, and so little available for the NYC?


Ben Hom
It's certainly a valid question, Ben. I just don't know the exact situation to be able to comment with authority on it - but I'm not sure anybody else does, either. All I can say for sure is that Terry Link is a personal friend and I do know for an absolute fact he's been consulted on several of the projects that have come out in the last few years.

As for the pros and cons of the NYCSHS, that's a big topic and one that is "off-topic" for this group. All I would like to say to anyone who is interested in these issues is - check it out for yourself. There's too many rumours and innuendos floating around.

If you have an interest in the NYC and want to see changes in the NYCSHS, then the only way that's going to happen is if you *join* and start getting involved. In other words, don't just grouse about it - *do* something about it!

Jim Yaworsky


Re: Tichy Rebuilt boxcar question

Craig Zeni
 

Jerry, didn't you have photos of that car? I have a couple of the Tichy cars and think this would make a great project for one of them...

--
Craig Zeni
Cary NC

"Bother", said Pooh, as he chambered another round...

______________________________________________________________________ __
4e. Re: Tichy Rebuilt boxcar question
Posted by: "jerryglow@..." jerryglow@... jerryglow2
Date: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:30 pm ((PDT))

I cut it off and replaced it with sheet and strip stock for mine.

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@..., "Charlie D modeling the Mopac http:// mopac51.tripod" <omahaduck@...> wrote:

Jerry - if I can sand off the Tichy kit's roof without too much damage I'll use the new Frisco decals you just sent me. I'd rather have a Frisco car than another P&LE on the layout.

Charlie Duckworth

--- In STMFC@..., jerryglow@ wrote:

If it's unbuilt it makes a good basis for a Frisco 8 panel USRA rebuild from a DS car. I just did decals for it in 3 versions (with and w/o "Lines" in a small herald and large herald with Frisco Fast Freight on the right. The latter started being applied approx late '52 with possibility of the others esp w/o "Lines" in '54.

The ACL set is also good for the same bash.

Jerry Glow
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/decals.html

--- In STMFC@..., "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@> wrote:
Unfortunately, these cars were never relettered for NYC, and other NYC rebuilt boxcars differed in height and ends. However, Sunshine did mini-kits (Jim Hayes Number "MK-15B", consisting of ends, center sill, decals) converting this model to Wabash 82000-82513 boxcars equipped with auto racks. This conversion could also be the basis for similar Wabash DS boxcar rebuilds - see my rebuilt boxcar spreadsheet in the files section for more Wabash possibilities.


Ben Hom


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

Bruce Smith
 

Andy,

A car assigned to LCL service does not need a tare weight as the shipper
is not being charged by the carload. The lack of this data on the car
side would also indicated to a shipper that the car could not be used
for carload shipments based on weight.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

Andy Harman <gsgondola@...> 03/18/11 11:49 PM >>>
At 07:31 AM 3/18/2011 -0700, you wrote:

It does not. The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT
WT
stencil.
Why was this information omitted? Just to prevent interchange? Not
like
there's any great expense involved in providing it.

Andy



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


New Location for Napervill RPM Meet

Rhbale@...
 

RPM-Naperville has found a new home.
The 2011 event will be held October 20-22 at the Hickory Ridge Marriott in
Lisle, Illinois. (call 630-971-5000 for reservations). Lisle is located
about 5 miles east of downtown Naperville.

Richard Bale
News Editor
Read Model Railroad Hobbyist magaZine, its always FREE at
_www.mrhmag.com_ (http://www.mrhmag.com)


Re: MCB or ARA Stencil Drawings

Thomas Birkett
 

Charlie

I returned home today after getting into Kansas City on No. 4 and driving to
Bartlesville.

My "Standards" is newer than I thiught, 1975. But it had no lettering fints
in it.

Sorry

Tom


Subject: [STMFC] MCB or ARA Stencil Drawings




Does anyone have digital copies of or refences for MCB or ARA stencil
drawings for alpha and numeric characters?
I've been searching for CB&Q "Railroad Roman" stencil drawings and found a
reference for such lettering as ARA rather than a CB&Q drawing number.
So far I've not been able to find MCB or ARA drawings, but I've seen them in
the past.....
Thanks,
Charlie Vlk


Georgia & Florida LOs

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Hi!

I recently saw a photo (scan of a slide, rather poor quality, i.e. very
small) of a strange-looking Georgia & Florida covered hopper:

http://www.ttnut.com/resources/image/2659

Possibly this is of a car in G&F 12076-12085 series... does anyone have
any further info on this cars?

Thanks,

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

dgconnery@sbcglobal.net <dgconnery@...>
 

This discussion has been quite interesting. I think it points out the risks of assuming everything worked by the book on a railroad. What the bosses put out in proclamations were not always followed to the letter.

I worked in the telegraph office of the NYC in Albany, NY from March 1956 to September 1958. At the time there was a lot of internal promotion of the NYC's Pacemaker service in company literature. I also remember a series of messages being fired back and forth between someone in a position in one of the yards and a freight agent at a local town about putting inappropriate loads in Pacemaker cars. The messages were noteworthy in that both parties seemed really upset by the whole thing. It didn't make a lot of sense to me at the time and when I talked with others in the office they just laughed at it as some new hire college kid at the yard trying to everything by the book.

It is easy to visualize a local agent sending a group of cars to a good shipper, some Pacemaker cars for that service and some regular boxcars for shipments off the system. If the customer's wharehouse men get shipments loaded in the wrong type cars, what is the local agent to do when a Pacemaker car comes back from the shipper consigned to an off system location. Does he send it back to the shipper to get it unloaded and then reloaded in the correct car? probably not.

The business had to get done despite the published practices.

Dave Connery


Re: Weathering Couplers

Andy Harman
 

First, I forgot to thank everyone who responded on this topic. I suspected
that my problem was more one of practice than technique, as most of you are
using the same basic methods I've already used... I just keep getting paint
where it's not supposed to be, and I've not had good results trying to
unstick a coupler once the jaw motion is impeded. Rarely do I have any
problem with the centering motion, just the jaw being either stuck or more
commonly, the action on it becmes to stiff for the spring to operate it.
About 40% of the time I can work it back and forth and get it going, but
seems like half of those stick again down the road after I've forgotten
about them.

I just painted a couple last night using a small brush and Floquil roof
brown straight from the bottle. So far so good. I also painted them
before mounting them, which allows me to better see what I'm doing and
control the flow of the paint. I will probably vary the colors and mix but
I think I'm better off using Floquil (as opposed to an acrylic) just
because it is easier to control and if it does get into the hinge, it
should be easier to work it back out. Thanks again for the suggestions.

Andy


Re: Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC

Andy Harman
 

At 07:31 AM 3/18/2011 -0700, you wrote:

It does not.  The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT WT
stencil.
Why was this information omitted? Just to prevent interchange? Not like
there's any great expense involved in providing it.

Andy