Date   

Re: Top 20 North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949

Tim O'Connor
 

Mike, essentially what I meant to say (but only implied) is that if
you are modeling a coal road like the C&O in an area full of coal mines,
then the vast majority of the coal cars seen will be C&O. But if you model
C&O in eastern VA or in Ohio, there may be many more foreign hoppers.

The point was that hopper/gondola population mixtures are far more
dependent on local factors than are box car/reefer mixtures, for most
mainline modeling. I think that is sufficiently vague and general. :-)

Suppose one sits down and decides that 50% of the fleet needs to be
box cars. Then one says that 20% of that number needs to be home road
and 10% is direct connections.

So now apply the population percentages to the 35% of your total freight
car fleet (.70 x .50) that will be "random" box cars. Note the randomness
does NOT exclude home road or direct connections. Why? Simple. If your
home road owned 90% of all the box cars that existed, then you should
expect more than 90% of all the box cars on your layout to be home road.

Tim O'

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

I'll grant you that large numbers of eastern RR hoppers might not have
wandered around "randomly" even in the east but they did wander and that's
really all that matters when the purpose of the evaluation is to determine
what cars were present in specific areas. I'll add that, even in the case of
C&O, if the number of WM hoppers turns out to be one car per 300 C&O
hoppers, that will likely match the number of Texas and Pacific box cars on
Sherman Hill. More importantly, such hopper car projections are necessary to
determine the number of C&O hoppers on the Rutland [ wherever that
is ]...rather than the other way.

Mike Brock


Re: US Navy freight cars.

Marty McGuirk
 

We still use some of those  cars - they were refurbished a few years ago. They are used to move conventional ordnance  . . .



see http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/SuccessStories2/107_Asbst_RR_Restor.pdf



The Navy Railway Operating Handbook https://portal.navfac.navy.mil/portal/page/portal/docs/doc_store_pub/navy%20railway%20operations%20handbook  offers a good basic introduction to the various types and cargos the Navy/Marine Corps ship by rail. Love the cover image - which hasn't changed in well over 6 decades.



There were of course, specialized cars that look like flatcars with large cylinders semi-permanently mounted in place, used to transport spent fuel rods. The current version of these cars operate with DODX markings and are designated as M140 - a little late for the era of this list, but there was an earlier version that ran in the (late) steam era.



Marty

----- Original Message -----
From: mail@kadee.com
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 17, 2011 11:41:56 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: US Navy freight cars.

 




Don't forget the Navy had three lots of 40 foot PS-1 box cars built in 1952, 1953 and 1955.

Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products

From: Allen Cain
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: US Navy freight cars.

Yes, the Navy did have box cars and at least one Helium car (for blimps I
think?). Will send to you direct in a separate email.

You find the car numbers and other info in any ORER. I will send a scan of
the October 1954 Navy info.

Allen Cain

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

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


Re: 5th Ave car shops DT&I decals

Douglas Harding
 

Bill you need to do mail order with 5th Ave Car Shops. Jim does not do email
or a website. And I don't believe there is work phone. And as others pointed
out, the decals are remaining stock on hand from the shake n take projects,
so quantities are perhaps limited.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org


Re: Top 20 North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949

mike brock <brockm@...>
 

Tim O'Connor writes:


Are we doing all of this AGAIN?

Well...looks like it. Heck, who knows we might get it "right" this time.

The "population tables" are most useful for figuring out the proper
mix of box cars and reefers on class 1 railroad mainlines, excepting
whatever "home road" is being modeled.
True enough...particularly if those car types are all that is considered. My point is, however, that other car types need to be included in specific locations. Not to determine the number of box cars and reefers but the other various types. IOW, for those modeling RR's in the midwest we might need to develop the projected number of N&W hoppers on the NYC and Pennsy lines north of Columbus, OH. OTOH, such numbers would not apply to the Pennsy or NYC into St.Louis. Similarly, anyone modeling the B&O between Pittsburgh and Chicago would need to study populations of hopper cars in that area.

Mike, I can't agree with your statement. If I model the C&O in West
Virginia, I may have a few N&W or PRR or B&O hoppers, but not many at
all, and vastly outnumbered by C&O hoppers.
I haven't studied N&W hoppers...or those of other RRs...on the C&O. I can tell you that solid trains of N&W hoppers operated on the NYC and Pennsy north of Columbus, OH. Also, unexpectedly, both L&N and Clinchfield hoppers were found in N&W trains operating east from Roanoke.

Unlike the box cars which
roamed freely and more or less "randomly" (per Gilbert), hoppers (in
general) moved less freely.
I'll grant you that large numbers of eastern RR hoppers might not have wandered around "randomly" even in the east but they did wander and that's really all that matters when the purpose of the evaluation is to determine what cars were present in specific areas. I'll add that, even in the case of C&O, if the number of WM hoppers turns out to be one car per 300 C&O hoppers, that will likely match the number of Texas and Pacific box cars on Sherman Hill. More importantly, such hopper car projections are necessary to determine the number of C&O hoppers on the Rutland [ wherever that is ]...rather than the other way.

Mike Brock


Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

Jim Betz
 

Tony,

At the risk of pointing out the obvious that everyone
already understands ... and taking an admittedly cheap
shot at your focus on all things PFE ... *W*

UNLESS you are modeling one of "those other - and often
forgotten(?) - RRs" of the West Coast that had their 'own'
reefer fleet and so need to include reporting marks such
as WFEX rather than PFE ... *VBG*

I agree that you can get into a can of worms about how
you apportion the reefer fleets if you try to include them
in their parent RRs. It's a lot easier to just use them
as a 'separate RR' in terms of any apportionment.

All,

Personally I feel that many of us are taking this search
for the proper mix of freight cars way too far. To my way
of thinking the big picture trends and generalities of what
the mix was (should be) are the important things to focus
on. I.e. that if you have a layout that is too heavily
loaded with home road cars it "looks wrong".
I will even go so far as to say that if you want to
really take it to this kind of distribution level I don't
think you can go wrong if you just "go counting" in the
pics you have available for the RR(s) you model for the
era you are modeling. There are lots of pics out there
that are of entire trains and yards that will give you a
very good ... and easily accessible ... feeling for the
mix of what cars were/were not represented on "your" RR.
Just use those numbers and you will have a fleet that is
highly representative and will look and feel "right".

If you really love the research into the mix of freight
cars - then by all means go for it ... and I ... and the
rest of us will benefit from it ===> and praise you for it.

But if you are trying to decide if you should have 1 or 2
DT&I gons on your layout because you want to represent the
"true" mix of cars ... maybe you have forgotten why you
started down that road and it would be better if you got
back to doing more modeling and less "research" ???
- Jim

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
2.1. Re: Underrepresented roads and car types
Posted by: "Anthony Thompson" thompson@signaturepress.com sigpress
Date: Mon May 16, 2011 9:59 pm ((PDT))
If we're looking for bragging rights vs. other railroads, hey,
let's add (some fraction of) the PFE cars to each railroad. But as I
understood the prior topic, we were looking at railroad car fleets,
especially box cars. The PFE cars are the reefer fleet of SP and UP,
and as such seem to me to be a little separate.
And lest this seem like an arcane topic of interest only to UP
and SP modelers, let me observe that you have a comparable issue with
the IGN relative to MoPac, the PM relative to C&O, and even the T&NO
relative to SP. Separate reporting marks, but commonality of car types
and car usage--and all these subsidiary road car fleets were operated
in tandem with the parent road. Whether you add them to the parent
road fleet size depends on what you're trying to show.

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: US Navy freight cars.

SamClarke
 

Don't forget the Navy had three lots of 40 foot PS-1 box cars built in 1952, 1953 and 1955.


Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products


From: Allen Cain
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 9:08 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: US Navy freight cars.



Yes, the Navy did have box cars and at least one Helium car (for blimps I
think?). Will send to you direct in a separate email.

You find the car numbers and other info in any ORER. I will send a scan of
the October 1954 Navy info.

Allen Cain


Re: Rivets

mforsyth127
 

Jack Burgess wrote:

I think you will get what you pay for. I've seen a closeup of the MM rivets and they in no way compare to the Archer rivets. They might look okay initially but you might very well be disappointed after painting. If you feel they will be okay, go ahead and buy a sheet but I'd suggest applying them to a piece of styrene and then painting them...it would be frustrating to use them, paint the model, and then find out that they lack relief.


Group,

Jack is TOTALLY spot-on here.

There has been some recent discussion about the new MicroMark rivets, and their very reasonable pricing.

I do a lot of scratch and custom building for myself and others, and thought I'd lend my 2cents, based on personal observations.

What MM is putting out looks great on the sheet to the naked eye, but if you look more closely, you might just be dismayed. After application to the model and once painted (as Jack mentioned), the issues with the product will be come obvious.

The black areas on the sheet appear to be crisp and well defined, the result of a simple printing of black ink. However, the thing that gives a product like this depth and dimension is the clear placed on top, and therein lies the problem.

There is no precision application of the clear top-coat on top of the printed image, just random puddles that are clearly visible on their tread plate and can also be seen on the rivets.

I have made a close up scan of the product, that I have posted on my website. I did not include the link in the post, as I would then have to wait for approval. If you wish to see the MM product up close, please contact me directly, mforsyth127 at yahoo dot com, and I will provide you with the URL.

Tougher to see in the scan is that their louvers are only partially covered by random puddles of clear, resulting in just randomly shaped, raised areas.

As I said, looks great on the sheet, and with the black base color printed below, your eyes will be tricked into thinking that the details are sharp, but once a colored top coat is applied, and the black printed base disappears, what you'll then see are just poorly defined random blobs and puddles.

Given what I have observed, I think I'll be sticking with Archer.

Just an FYI...

Thanks,

Matt Forsyth
Modeling the D&H Penn Division
Erie Jefferson Division
in Proto 5-0, late summer of 1950


Re: Top 20 North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949

Armand Premo
 

This is a discussion that will be endless.First of all the area being modeled is the most important factor in determining car mix.The ORER has divided the country into various regions.One is most likely to see cars from within that geographical region or a directly neighboring region regardless of fleet size.I.E.you are more likely to see SP cars in the west than in the east and more Pennsy cars in the east than in the west.Supporting documentation such as wheel reports,conductors books help in determining what ran where.Show me the documentation and I might agree.Armand Premo North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949
Are we doing all of this AGAIN?

The "population tables" are most useful for figuring out the proper
mix of box cars and reefers on class 1 railroad mainlines, excepting
whatever "home road" is being modeled.

The tables should not include coal hoppers, or gondolas used mostly
for coal, sand, and gravel.

I think the above is consistent with Tim Gilbert's studies of freight
car distribution in the immediate postwar era.

Mike, I can't agree with your statement. If I model the C&O in West
Virginia, I may have a few N&W or PRR or B&O hoppers, but not many at
all, and vastly outnumbered by C&O hoppers. Unlike the box cars which
roamed freely and more or less "randomly" (per Gilbert), hoppers (in
general) moved less freely.

Tim O'Connor

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

>Being one who models west of the Mississippi, I concor with Richard's point.
>However, for those modeling east of that river, hoppers play a significant
>role...even more than that in the Appalachian region running from Alabama
>into New England. If one models just about any RR in that area, one will
>need many N&W, WM, L&N, B&O, C&O, Pennsy, and even NYC hoppers. So, the rule
>for determining frt car population changes when one changes location.
>
>Mike Brock






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



Internal Virus Database is out of date.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.891 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3235 - Release Date: 11/03/10 04:36:00


Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

North Model Railroad Supplies <nmrs@...>
 

And lest this seem like an arcane topic of interest only to UP
and SP modelers, let me observe that you have a comparable issue with
the IGN relative to MoPac, the PM relative to C&O, and even the T&NO
relative to SP. Separate reporting marks, but commonality of car types
and car usage--and all these subsidiary road car fleets were operated
in tandem with the parent road. Whether you add them to the parent
road fleet size depends on what you're trying to show.

Tony Thompson





Tony,

You make a valid point.

How did you account for the SFRD cars of the Santa Fe? Are they accounted
for in the ATSF numbers or in a separate listing?

Cheers

Dave North


Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

jerryglow2
 

And split ART between MP and Wabash...

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, SUVCWORR@... wrote:




Then you would need to add the SFRD to the ATSF and the FGEX to all the member roads.

Rich Orr






-----Original Message-----
From: mike brock <brockm@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Underrepresented roads and car types


Tony Thompson writes:

What's all this UP sensitivity? It's an interesting and in some
ways glamorous railroad, but stands around 14th or 15th in terms of
size of freight car fleet, as of the early 1950s.
Yes, but doesn't it make sense to add PFE cars to the UP...and SP...numbers?
Certainly such cars were extremely important to UP and SP and, of course,
there is the ownership factor.

Mike Brock



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

Yahoo! Groups Links







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


Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

SUVCWORR@...
 

Then you would need to add the SFRD to the ATSF and the FGEX to all the member roads.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: mike brock <brockm@brevard.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Underrepresented roads and car types


Tony Thompson writes:

What's all this UP sensitivity? It's an interesting and in some
ways glamorous railroad, but stands around 14th or 15th in terms of
size of freight car fleet, as of the early 1950s.
Yes, but doesn't it make sense to add PFE cars to the UP...and SP...numbers?
Certainly such cars were extremely important to UP and SP and, of course,
there is the ownership factor.

Mike Brock



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: ART wood refrigerator car

jerryglow2
 

Unfortunately they were already out of production 15+ years ago when Terry Wegmann made a short run (33 kits) of one piece bodies based on a revised Sunshine kit.
http://home.comcast.net/~jerryglow/modeling/ART.html

Jerry Glow

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, asychis@... wrote:

Sunshine resin kit would probably do.

Jerry Michels

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


Re: Underrepresented roads and car types

SUVCWORR@...
 

Only if you add half of the PFE fleet to each . Otherwise you are counting the PFE fleet twice.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: mike brock <brockm@brevard.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, May 16, 2011 10:55 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Underrepresented roads and car types


Tony Thompson writes:

What's all this UP sensitivity? It's an interesting and in some
ways glamorous railroad, but stands around 14th or 15th in terms of
size of freight car fleet, as of the early 1950s.
Yes, but doesn't it make sense to add PFE cars to the UP...and SP...numbers?
Certainly such cars were extremely important to UP and SP and, of course,
there is the ownership factor.

Mike Brock



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: ART wood refrigerator car

asychis@...
 

Sunshine resin kit would probably do.

Jerry Michels


Re: Definition of a Fishbelly Underframe

ROGER HINMAN
 

http://books.google.com/books?id=RE1QAAAAYAAJ&;pg=PA229&lpg=PA229&dq=fishbelly+center+sill&source=bl&ots=-2_LmL1b57&sig=NOuEWEDzsNWRenJ-zAudOcslinc&hl=en&ei=TW3STZtpwdyBB6653NML&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=fishbelly%20center%20sill&f=false
On May 16, 2011, at 5:31 PM, Bill Welch wrote:

Was there a formula or dimensions or some other basis that was used
to define what constituted a "fishbelly" underframe. I ask because
while the u/f of the USRA's 40-ton DS car was obviously this type of
underframe and is usually identified as such, other car designs, the
PRR's X23/R7 for example, had a centersill that was deeper at their
center portions but narrowed towards the bolsters. Sort a "trimmer"
fishbelly if you will. I have never noticed these cars as being
referred to as having a fishbelly u/f. An even trimmer example would
be the Bettendorf u/f profile.

I am mainly trying to understand how to more precisely apply the
term, or better, when not to apply the term "fishbelly?"
Bill Welch
2225 Nursery Road; #20-104
Clearwater, FL 33764-7622
727.470.9930
fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com





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


NYC Yahoo groups Re: NYCSHS New e-zine NYCentral Modeler

Paul <kruegerp@...>
 

There is also NYC-Modeler.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NYC-Modeler/

Freight cars are sometimes discussed on this group.

Paul
Seattle, WA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Widdifield" <NYCBigFour@...> wrote:

Brian,
We are not sure how much the membership will embrace the modeling, but if they don't there won't be a Society in a few years. The people who worked on the NYC and occupy Board positions today will be gone in 10 – 20 years. If we can't get modelers interested, we will be gone.
There are two Yahoo Groups where you can get info - newyorkcentralsystem & BigFour Route. There will be a new one starting soon that will be of interest NYC modelers. It should be up and running in a week or so.
Thanks, Noel

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

. . . We will only be as successful if we have articles from modelers. -Noel <
Noel,

From a Midwesterner who is captivated by upstate New York and New England topography and history, I (selfishly) wish you high success. I moved on from the Boston & Albany (to the B&M and CV) as a modeling subject when I discovered how difficult it is -- for me, anyway -- to dredge up NYC information.

So, a question if I may: Do you have a membership that is now ready to embrace modeling as a way to preserve NYC history? Or, are you and a few others hoping to develop an interest in modeling that is, at the moment, lacking?

A few years ago, I posted a question or two about the B&A at the NYC-Railroad yahoo group and received zero responses. This, in combination with finding little other B&A information online, motivated me to leave the B&A behind.

(I have collected a large amount of B&A documentation from the Conrail era, but my modeling focus is the 1950s. Which means the double-track B&A is a problem for me. . . .)

BTW, is the NYC-Railroad the leading NYC information forum out there?

Thanks much,

Brian Chapman
Evansdale, Iowa


Re: Definition of a Fishbelly Underframe

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "al_brown03" <abrown@...> wrote:

Hmm ... it sounds as though one might define a "deep" fishbelly as being consistent with both definitions, and a "shallow" fishbelly as consistent with only the less restrictive one. Can that be expressed quantitatively?

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
Please keep in mind that it is not the purpose of a dictionary to coin new terms, but rather explain terms that have come into common usage. As such, they lag behind the language.

It would appear that the term was first applied to passenger cars with deep sills AFTER cars with straight sills began to be built, since before that there was no reason to differentiate, as all passenger cars had deep sills. The term then evolved to mean ANY application with sills of unequal cross section over the length of the car.

Dennis


ART wood refrigerator car

Marty McGuirk
 

See the following link - this photo was taken in Lewiston, Me., on the Grand Trunk (NEL):



http://www.sullboat.com/lewiston1956_caboose77895.jpg



The caboose was leased to the GT(NEL) in 1956, and steam was off the railroad by 1957, which means this photo was likely taken in either the early part of 1956 or in the Fall of 56 or winter of 57 (based on the leafless trees).



Any suggestions on modeling the wood ART refrigerator car in the foreground?



There were two large beer distributors on the GT's branch in Lewiston, as well as a meat packing house (privately owned) and a Swift packing house. My guess - and it's just that - is the car is going to/from the Midwest with some of that St. Louis swill . . . . I mean "beer."



Thanks,



Marty


Re: Top 20 North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949

jerryglow2
 

I agree and in playing with the sheet ordered the fleet by column E (boxcars) and compared each road's numbers to total boxcars. Try it - you'll be amazed at the results.

Jerry Glow

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

Are we doing all of this AGAIN?

The "population tables" are most useful for figuring out the proper
mix of box cars and reefers on class 1 railroad mainlines, excepting
whatever "home road" is being modeled.

The tables should not include coal hoppers, or gondolas used mostly
for coal, sand, and gravel.

I think the above is consistent with Tim Gilbert's studies of freight
car distribution in the immediate postwar era.

Mike, I can't agree with your statement. If I model the C&O in West
Virginia, I may have a few N&W or PRR or B&O hoppers, but not many at
all, and vastly outnumbered by C&O hoppers. Unlike the box cars which
roamed freely and more or less "randomly" (per Gilbert), hoppers (in
general) moved less freely.

Tim O'Connor

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

Being one who models west of the Mississippi, I concor with Richard's point.
However, for those modeling east of that river, hoppers play a significant
role...even more than that in the Appalachian region running from Alabama
into New England. If one models just about any RR in that area, one will
need many N&W, WM, L&N, B&O, C&O, Pennsy, and even NYC hoppers. So, the rule
for determining frt car population changes when one changes location.

Mike Brock


Re: Top 20 North American Freight Car Fleets, January 1949

Tim O'Connor
 

Are we doing all of this AGAIN?

The "population tables" are most useful for figuring out the proper
mix of box cars and reefers on class 1 railroad mainlines, excepting
whatever "home road" is being modeled.

The tables should not include coal hoppers, or gondolas used mostly
for coal, sand, and gravel.

I think the above is consistent with Tim Gilbert's studies of freight
car distribution in the immediate postwar era.

Mike, I can't agree with your statement. If I model the C&O in West
Virginia, I may have a few N&W or PRR or B&O hoppers, but not many at
all, and vastly outnumbered by C&O hoppers. Unlike the box cars which
roamed freely and more or less "randomly" (per Gilbert), hoppers (in
general) moved less freely.

Tim O'Connor

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

Being one who models west of the Mississippi, I concor with Richard's point.
However, for those modeling east of that river, hoppers play a significant
role...even more than that in the Appalachian region running from Alabama
into New England. If one models just about any RR in that area, one will
need many N&W, WM, L&N, B&O, C&O, Pennsy, and even NYC hoppers. So, the rule
for determining frt car population changes when one changes location.

Mike Brock

82221 - 82240 of 182127