|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
The Boxes are of no real consequence as long as the resin is white you are good to go.
Brian J. Carlson, P.E. Cheektowaga NY
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Mark Drake <markstation01@...>
From: Charles Peck lnnrr152@... [STMFC] ; To: ; Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?) Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 1:52:03 PM
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:35 AM, cepropst@q.com [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Clark, just run all your boxes through the trash compactor. They will all be the same size then and leave you more room for kits you might build someday. Chuck Peck in FL
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 9:35 AM, cepropst@q.com [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Clark Propst
One of the kits I bought at the St Louis RPM is a different shape than what
I’ve bought the last few years, more square. I like my boxes uniform, so I can
stack the empty boxes by manufacturer on shelving under the layout. And to think
my wife says I’m anal??
Clark
Propst Mason City Iowa
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Keith,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
F&C has used a number of boxes over the years, but I never paid much attention to what was around the kit. I suspect that they have bought whatever boxes are available at the best price, so in-stock kits may come in several types depending upon what was available at the time the kit was produced. Some of the older kits, including those made for the Steam Shack, came in a one-piece box similar to a pizza carton, where the lid was attached, and closed with a tongue inserted into the compartment. These are strong enough to be used as shipping cartons in their own right. When I bought one of their War Emergency 40' gondolas a few years ago, it too came in this box. Perhaps they were still using up old boxes. Current production comes in a white box with a separate lid and a photo of the car on the top, I assume what you call a "picture box". These are similar to the Athearn blue boxes or those used by Tichy, but they are not covered with paper, so you can see the seams and corner re-enforcements. The bagged kits have been offered for years, and are still available for many of the flat kits, generally the older ones. You should become familiar with their web site: http://www.fandckits.com/ . Yours Aye, Garth Groff On 9/3/15 8:03 PM,
hvyweight41@... [STMFC] wrote:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Loading Barrels For Railroad Shipment
thecitrusbelt@...
I found this bit of loading trivia in an on-line version of The Cooperage Handbook by Fred Putnam Hankerson. This was published by Chemical Publishing in 1947,
The section on loading barrels begins on Page 153 and can be view on this link:
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015006133204;view=1up;seq=163
The material is illustrated and includes a glossary of cooperage terms.
Bob Chaparro
Hemet, CA
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
devansprr
Jeff,
These data are from official ICC reports. I do not know the exact source, but I think the Class I's were required to submit this information to the ICC based on actual RR totals - not waybill samples. well over 100 railroads are reported. But I have no way to know for sure how accurate the data is. Considering the ICC's obsession over the years to reorganize US Railroads, I suspect they collected a lot of data. And with the demise of the ICC, information on this data seems to be hard to come by. I can't seem to find a map that shows the ICC districts and regions - which do not appear to match AAR car service districts. I would also note that data for a few "strategic" products have been omitted from this war time report - for example rubber, copper, zinc, explosives, sulfuric acid, etc, representing about 1/2 million car loads (some of my copies have an insert with the totals for these products with a note that the data for them was no longer confidential.) Dave Evans ---In STMFC@..., <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote : Dave,
Aha! Thanks – I thought you were citing data for “Products of Forests”. My theories about the meaning of each column are misguided as a result of my wrong assumption.
I also suspect that when you posted, you did not multiply the numbers by 100 (since they don’t end in “00” ). Is the data from the 1% waybill sample?
Regards,
-Jeff
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Herald King & Champ Decals
amwing1588@...
Yes!
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
devansprr
Jeff,
For the total lumber hauled by a railroad, you need to total all four columns. So in 1942, UP hauled 3,492,636 tons of lumber in 108,520 carloads. I can not find anything suggesting that there are zeros missing in these totals. While 300 loads a day may not seem like a lot, remember that in this era most freight cars only traveled about 100 miles per day, so there were likely several thousand carloads of lumber on the UP on any given day. UP's total carloads in 1942 was 1.4M. This is before all the merger and consolidations that turned UP into the major it is today. In 1942, nationally the class I's handled 72.9M carloads, so the UP was only 2% of that total. The PRR handled 6.1M carloads in 1942. (note that these are carloads handled by each RR, so many cars are counted more than once - this is the only carload data in the report for individual railroads, but it does NOT represent how many cars were loaded! At the national level, about 34M cars were loaded in 1942. With a fleet of around 1.9M cars, that works out to cars averaging about 3 weeks between each loading - hoppers were likely shorter. Box cars going cross country could have been longer.) While the UP handled less than 1/4 the carloads of the PRR, it generated nearly 1/2 the freight revenue of the PRR, so obviously UP hauls were much longer than PRR hauls. Dave Evans ---In STMFC@..., <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote : Mark,
Yes, the first column would represent those shipments, but my opinion (quite possibly wrong) is that the shipments to CO, UT, KS, and NE were actually insignificant. Kansas, for example, terminated 634,000 tons of “Products of Forests” in 1950, of which 205,800 tons came from Oregon. That’s about 39 cars per day for the whole state (12 from Oregon). But now that I compare the actual numbers, something’s not right. The UP data for 1945 was
1945 335,203 750,527 504,843 1,279,837 $18,486k
I wonder if these numbers should be multiplied by 100. At 45 tons per car, 335,203 tons = 7448 cars per year = 20 cars per day – not even a whole train. 2000 cars per day seems a bit too large, however, so I’m really confused. Dave Evans, can you please double-check?
Regards,
-Jeff
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Jeff, wouldn't the first column represent also lumber received on mills located on UP and delivered to customers on UP? UP originated substantial quantities out of eastern Oregon and Idaho, particularly from Boise-Payette Lumber and Potlatch Lumber. Deliveries to Colorado, Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska would not be insignificant. Colorado and Utah were net lumber importers.
Mark Hemphill
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
Aley, Jeff A
Dave,
Aha! Thanks – I thought you were citing data for “Products of Forests”. My theories about the meaning of each column are misguided as a result of my wrong assumption.
I also suspect that when you posted, you did not multiply the numbers by 100 (since they don’t end in “00” ). Is the data from the 1% waybill sample?
Regards,
-Jeff
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Jeff,
Dave, This data surprises me. The first column (originated and terminated on UP) should mostly represent raw lumber going to mills on the UP. The second would be the finished lumber going offline. I would therefore expect the latter to be similar in magnitude to the former.
Similarly, I am surprised that UP terminated so much lumber received from other carriers. The bridge traffic (I’d bet it was received from the SP) makes sense.
Comments?
Regards,
-Jeff
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] The following columns are provided:
And for UP (for grins):
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
devansprr
Jeff,
In the ICC reports of the era, logs are a separate commodity (group 400). "Lumber, shingles and Lath" were group 430. "Veneer and built-up wood" was group 432. The stats I provided in the previous post were only group 430. For 1941, the UP terminated 668k tons of logs that originated on UP, but only delivered 1k tons of logs to other carriers. Those logs may have been milled into category 430 or 432, or one of the other specialty groups that were comparatively minor. But the UP delivered lumber to its customers and other carriers totaling 1,078k tons, so it looks like as much as 400k tons of logs did not see UP rails on the way to the mills - not that surprising when considering logs floated to the mills, and logging railroads dedicated to supplying specific mills. Nationally, the amount of terminating logs by US railroads was about 1/2 the amount of originating wood products, so lots of logs got to the mills without being carried by the "class I steam railways." Pulpwood is a separate forest product group and does not appear in any of the stats I have provided. But, nationally, US railways hauled almost as many tons of pulpwood as logs used for wood products. The amount of lumber delivered to UP customers may seem large, but then US wide, US railroads delivered 30.5 Million tons of lumber in 1941 - so UP delivered about 2.3 % of that product to their customers. That seems reasonable. And the UP delivered 2 Million tons to other roads in interchange - nearly 7% of US lumber traffic - which is very impressive. That helps explain why Mike Brock sees so much lumber in his conductor reports, even though they are post war. Note that only 26 Million tons of lumber originated on US railroads, so I suspect 3.5 Million tons was imported from Canada in 1941. Sure wish there was a way to digitize these ICC reports - about 150 pages of ledger size sheets for each year. At most 8 pt fonts and scant line spacing. Huge amount of data. Dave Evans ---In STMFC@..., <Jeff.A.Aley@...> wrote : Dave, This data surprises me. The first column (originated and terminated on UP) should mostly represent raw lumber going to mills on the UP. The second would be the finished lumber going offline. I would therefore expect the latter to be similar in magnitude to the former.
Similarly, I am surprised that UP terminated so much lumber received from other carriers. The bridge traffic (I’d bet it was received from the SP) makes sense.
Comments?
Regards,
-Jeff
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
The following columns are provided: > Year And for UP (for grins): 1941 306,150 772,376 403,026 1,315,446 $17,428k 1942 440,798 932,544 615,183 1,504,111 $22,360k 1943 369,967 815,985 521,614 1,513,932 $21,266k 1944 417,548 915,605 568,543 1,573,220 $22,720k 1945 335,203 750,527 504,843 1,279,837 $18,486k
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
Aley, Jeff A
Mark,
Yes, the first column would represent those shipments, but my opinion (quite possibly wrong) is that the shipments to CO, UT, KS, and NE were actually insignificant. Kansas, for example, terminated 634,000 tons of “Products of Forests” in 1950, of which 205,800 tons came from Oregon. That’s about 39 cars per day for the whole state (12 from Oregon). But now that I compare the actual numbers, something’s not right. The UP data for 1945 was
1945 335,203 750,527 504,843 1,279,837 $18,486k
I wonder if these numbers should be multiplied by 100. At 45 tons per car, 335,203 tons = 7448 cars per year = 20 cars per day – not even a whole train. 2000 cars per day seems a bit too large, however, so I’m really confused. Dave Evans, can you please double-check?
Regards,
-Jeff
From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...]
Jeff, wouldn't the first column represent also lumber received on mills located on UP and delivered to customers on UP? UP originated substantial quantities out of eastern Oregon and Idaho, particularly from Boise-Payette Lumber and Potlatch Lumber. Deliveries to Colorado, Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska would not be insignificant. Colorado and Utah were net lumber importers.
Mark Hemphill
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic
Mark Hemphill
Jeff, wouldn't the first column represent also lumber received on mills located on UP and delivered to customers on UP? UP originated substantial quantities out of eastern Oregon and Idaho, particularly from Boise-Payette Lumber and Potlatch Lumber. Deliveries to Colorado, Utah, Kansas, and Nebraska would not be insignificant. Colorado and Utah were net lumber importers.
Mark Hemphill
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Bill Welch
Currently they are using or experimenting using a "U-Line" box from what I saw at Collinsville. It is smaller than the box Speedwitch uses IIRC.
Bill Welch
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Car Service Rules
lstt100
March 1951 was at the end of a rough winter for many locations and also happened at the time of equipment shortages almost nationwide. Numbers began to improve from 1951 to 1952.
Dan
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Alcohol Shipments, was Pacific Northwest WWII was Lumber Traffic
Larry Rice
Wood alcohol is/was an important raw material in the manufacture of formaldehyde, which is an ingredient in some adhesives used in plywood manufacture. Formaldehyde was also used widely in pulp mills during the steam era, though that use has been illegal for some time. Off the top of my head, I can think of four or five plants in the Northwest that manufactured wood or methyl alcohol. Larry Rice Port Townsend WA
|
||
|
|
||
|
paint
Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
Just received my copy of RMC today and noticed a
paragraph that MinuteMan Scale Models has purchased Scalecoat.
This sounds like a good thing.
-- Jon Miller For me time stopped in 1941 Digitrax Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User NMRA Life member #2623 Member SFRH&MS
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Alcohol Shipments, was Pacific Northwest WWII was Lumber Traffic
Jon Miller <atsfus@...>
On 9/3/2015 4:39 PM, Mike Bauers
mwbauers55@... [STMFC] wrote:
I think that is exactly on target…… so to speak . From the net is appears the Mark 14 was hardly ever "on target" (VBG)! Does anyone else have any more information on that facility? It interested me because I lived in Eugene from the middle to late 50s and never heard of the plant. Springfield was close in those days and now I understand it's just one big city. -- Jon Miller For me time stopped in 1941 Digitrax Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User NMRA Life member #2623 Member SFRH&MS
|
||
|
|
||
|
Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
hvyweight41
I have been purchasing F&C kits from different secondhand sources and begun to see that there are different styles of boxes. I assume they have changed over time. I describe the different styles as: white box - one piece folded box with text paper label on the end blue box - two piece box with blue lid and text paper label on the end picture box - two piece box with white lid and printed label with picture of the built model on top of lid Also, I have one kit in a plastic bag with a F&C label. I remember reading, here, that the bagged kits were sold by F&C at train shows and meets. I have searched through the messages, files and photos, but have not been able to find anything that talks to the evolution of the F&C kit box. Has anyone documented what box was used when? I assume the picture box is the current version, based on the new kits I see being sold. Thanks, Keith Kempster Jacksonville, FL PS I apologize if this is a repeat. I tried a couple days ago and my browser restarted when I hit <send>. I have waited to see if it showed up, but have not seen it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Re: Alcohol Shipments, was Pacific Northwest WWII was Lumber Traffic
mwbauers
I think that is exactly on target…… so to speak .
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Best to ya, Mike Bauers Milwaukee, Wi
|
||
|
|