Date   

Re: Freight car Distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Mike Aufderheide wrote:
. . . I have turned the national fleet numbers into a shopping list for model cars . . . I've posted my excel sheet which includes this information and the models for as many of these cars as I could determine.
Wow, great stuff, Mike. Very interesting reading. I will see if there are any parts I can comment on in a helpful way.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Freight car Distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton wrote:
That doesn't mean Joe the Modeller can't run some peculiar mix of his own, based on a theory of his devising or just plain picking cars he likes.
This was true before Gilbert and Nelson, it's true now, and will doubtless remain true. Of course, this Joe isn't someone interested in G-N anyway, and if you told him about it, he'd look at you like you were from another galaxy.

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@...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

rwitt_2000
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ed Hawkins wrote:

On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

As I said Kadee probably chose a 3-spring pack because it is more
obvious to modelers that that truck is different from their other
trucks -- ya know, Marketing 101. :-)
Tim,
Perhaps Sam Clarke of Kadee will provide a better explanation, but
I've
spoken to Sam about their 70-ton Barber plain-bearing truck (#566)
with
3 outboard springs. The truck is accurate for a specific 50' PS-1
box
car (built ca. early 1960s) that Kadee has plans to produce. I made
a
search of other prototype cars having trucks of similar appearance,
and
about all I could find were a few series of Greenville gondola cars
(Life-Like model). That's not to say my search was exhaustive, but
rather I limited my search to prototype cars in which reasonably
accurate models exist. It's certainly possible I've missed some.
I did a very fast, and far from exhaustive, scan of my photo
collection and found photos of many cars having AAR trucks with 3
outboard springs. Not all are Barber S-2s; some earlier ones have
Barber later motion devices; and it isn't always apparent in the
photos whether they have spring planks or not. However, trucks with
3 outboard springs are so distinctive that, for that reason alone,
having them available at all in HO scale is a big step forward. And
quite a number of the cars I found can be modeled easily (War
Emergency mill gons, ARA quad hoppers, AAR 70 ton flats, etc.) in
addition to the Greenville-design gondolas Ed cites.

Flat Cars: DL&W, Erie, GTW, Reading, Southern Pacific.

Gondolas: CNJ, Monon, Erie, NYC, Nickel Plate, Norfolk & Western,
Pennsy, Pere Marquette, Reading, Southern Pacific, Wabash, Western
Maryland

Hoppers: ATSF, Boston & Maine, Lehight Valley, MILW, N&W, Southern
Pacific

Covered Hoppers: ATSF, N&W, Pennsy.

So the Kadee trucks are much more widely useful than some list
members seem to think.

Richard Hendrickson
The B&ORR also had a larger fleet of AAR 70-ton flatcars based upon the
one designed for the ERIE.

From the Fallen Flags site:
http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/bo/bo8831akg.jpg

But I see that the spring pack appears to differ from that on the Kadee
truck.

http://www.kadee.com/htmbord/page566.htm

Bob Witt


Re: Freight car Distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Thanks for the Excel spreadsheet Mike! Amazing document. Reviewing it
and looking for any mistakes could become a second hobby for someone!

Tim O'Connor

I don't want to debate the merits of the Gilbert-Nelson ideas, it is clear that everyone needs to make their own decisions about how well it suits what they model. For me it matches closely enough that I have turned the national fleet numbers into a shopping list for model cars. Starting with Larry Ostresh's 1950 ORER box, auto and vent transcription, similar cars have been identified by type to understand the most common cars by railroad. Knowing that I want a fleet of about 200 cars has defined which cars these are. I've posted my excel sheet which includes this information and the models for as many of these cars as I could determine. Any corrections are very appreciated.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide


Re: Freight car Distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton wrote

Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
"Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"<<

Neither would be wrong.

Yes, that was the point Aidrian. It's right, but a -particular- day
may be so far from the G-N ideal that's it's not possible to tell
if the modeler (1) has correctly modeled a particular, weird day or
(2) has cobbled together a random and ludricrous assortment of cars.

Do you see the dilemma? You can't TELL, unless you sit there for all
365 days of model railroad operation and take notes on all of the
train consists and then compile the statistics to prove it's right
or wrong (or conformant/non-conformant).

Which is why I added that "epistemology" tag... How do we know what
we know?

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight car Distribution

Michael Aufderheide
 

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
I think both Gilbert and Nelson felt, back when presenting
their results, that the hypothesis was going to work best for mainline trains, especially with bridge traffic.
Since I model the Monon this bridge traffic has been central to what I'm trying to represent with my model fleet. The Monon's brideg traffic was as much as 50%. I was lucky enough to find Monon conductor's logs for the time I'm modeling. Several years ago I transcribed about 700 of these log entries into excel and Tim Gilbert was kind enough to analyze them. He discovered that the cars matched the national fleet numbers very closely (within 5%) with a few exceptions; there were fewer cars from Northwest railroads and more from Southeast railroads.

I don't want to debate the merits of the Gilbert-Nelson ideas, it is clear that everyone needs to make their own decisions about how well it suits what they model. For me it matches closely enough that I have turned the national fleet numbers into a shopping list for model cars. Starting with Larry Ostresh's 1950 ORER box, auto and vent transcription, similar cars have been identified by type to understand the most common cars by railroad. Knowing that I want a fleet of about 200 cars has defined which cars these are. I've posted my excel sheet which includes this information and the models for as many of these cars as I could determine. Any corrections are very appreciated.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide


Re: Freight car Distribution

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

Trying to save electrons by combining responses

From Tim O'C

Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
"Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"

Neither woudl be wrong.

G-N describes norms/averages, and with some work we could also
establish standard deviations. The fact is that the likihood of any
single train matching the distribution is remote, but that the overall
picture with the dat we have so far seems to show a degree
correlation between data and the G-N hypothesis.

Any given train on any given day or the overall balance for the whole
day might see an enormous variations from the proportions you would
expect from a strict and unthinking application of the G-N model. The
fact is that almost any combination of cars is statistically
*possible*, but certain combinations are very, very improbable - for
example solid blocks of N&W hoppers on Sherman Hill, though of course
these are not generally considered free roaming cars so the G-N model
doesn't work here anyway...

From Tony Thompson

"The G-N hypothesis
looks fairly solid and is backed by a lot of data. It will take
comparably good and comparably numerous data to consider rejecting it."

Yes, thank you. There are going to be exceptions, but as Dave Nelson
said there are more data available but turning the raw wheel reports
into usablde data is a huge undertaking. Until anpother group does
this and develops a better hypothesis, G-N is still the best we have.

That doesn't mean Joe the Modeller can't run some peculiar mix of his
own, based on a theory of his devising or just plain picking cars he
likes. Assuming he knows enough to avoid anachronism and possible
clearance or weight problems with some cars, any combination is
possible though sometimes improbable. However the idea for me is to
model the plausible rather than the possible, the commonplace and
expected rather than the odd.


Aidrian
(Marge is having Sunday afternoon off)


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 11, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Ed Hawkins wrote:

On Apr 11, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

As I said Kadee probably chose a 3-spring pack because it is more
obvious to modelers that that truck is different from their other
trucks -- ya know, Marketing 101. :-)
Tim,
Perhaps Sam Clarke of Kadee will provide a better explanation, but
I've
spoken to Sam about their 70-ton Barber plain-bearing truck (#566)
with
3 outboard springs. The truck is accurate for a specific 50' PS-1 box
car (built ca. early 1960s) that Kadee has plans to produce. I made a
search of other prototype cars having trucks of similar appearance,
and
about all I could find were a few series of Greenville gondola cars
(Life-Like model). That's not to say my search was exhaustive, but
rather I limited my search to prototype cars in which reasonably
accurate models exist. It's certainly possible I've missed some.
I did a very fast, and far from exhaustive, scan of my photo
collection and found photos of many cars having AAR trucks with 3
outboard springs. Not all are Barber S-2s; some earlier ones have
Barber later motion devices; and it isn't always apparent in the
photos whether they have spring planks or not. However, trucks with
3 outboard springs are so distinctive that, for that reason alone,
having them available at all in HO scale is a big step forward. And
quite a number of the cars I found can be modeled easily (War
Emergency mill gons, ARA quad hoppers, AAR 70 ton flats, etc.) in
addition to the Greenville-design gondolas Ed cites.

Flat Cars: DL&W, Erie, GTW, Reading, Southern Pacific.

Gondolas: CNJ, Monon, Erie, NYC, Nickel Plate, Norfolk & Western,
Pennsy, Pere Marquette, Reading, Southern Pacific, Wabash, Western
Maryland

Hoppers: ATSF, Boston & Maine, Lehight Valley, MILW, N&W, Southern
Pacific

Covered Hoppers: ATSF, N&W, Pennsy.

So the Kadee trucks are much more widely useful than some list
members seem to think.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

Tim O'Connor
 

Brian Leppert wrote

...for my own modeling standards, I feel that the spring grouping is one of
the first things to consider when chosing a truck for a model, so Kadee's may
be useful. There were similar Barbers, but with a spring plank. Brian Leppert
Brian, you've reached the essential point -- there are THOUSANDS of
permutations of sideframes, bolsters, spring planks, journals, journal
box lids on prototype cars. So what are the ESSENTIAL features to consider
when choosing a model truck when no EXACT match exists? I'd agree with you
that springs are important, but I also weight bolsters equally -- given a
basic AAR or double truss sideframe. But in the case of more distinctive
sideframes like Andrews, Dalman, Vulcan or PRR Type Y, then the sideframe
is the most important factor, and springs & bolsters are secondary.

Tim O'Connor


New file uploaded to STMFC

STMFC@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Freight Car Distribution/ORER_1950_Box_Auto_Base_Fleet.xls
Uploaded by : mononinmonon <mononinmonon@...>
Description : Most numerous box, auto, and vented boxcars by railroad in 1950.

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Freight%20Car%20Distribution/ORER_1950_Box_Auto_Base_Fleet.xls

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/forms/general.htmlfiles

Regards,

mononinmonon <mononinmonon@...>


Re: Freight car Distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Jeff Aley wrote

The "proximity" part of the hypothesis may also be affected by business relationships
between the railroads (some of which are friendly, and others downright hostile).
Jeff, I really doubt very much that any such skew to "friendliness" exists.
Certainly car assignments, local traffic requirements, and tendency of freight
cars to travel moderate distances (average box car shipments in the 1950's under
600 miles) alone can account for skewing of the averages without invoking some
"friendliness" factor. At the same time, in cases like B&O vs PRR, whose
territories were practically identical, the percentages may be skewed (e.g.
fewer than expected B&O cars on PRR, fewere PRR on B&O) simply because cars
loaded on those roads -tended- not to be delivered to a parallel competitor.
Of course they could be interchanged, but the skew would be away from it.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight car Distribution

Jerry Dziedzic
 

Well said.

Dave, thanks very much for your comments. I now have a much better understanding of the original work. (My sympathies regarding the tedium of data entry, based on my experience with much smaller samples.)

Tim, compliments to you, too, for describing the dilemma that success can create.

I'm glad Armand prompted us to renew this discussion. Thanks!


Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tim's opinion, far below, is spot on.


As a reminder, when I first put together this hypothesis, it sprang from
combining the ORER -- the number of ordinary boxcars -- to the ICC September
1 survey of home cars on home roads. Taking those two facts you have a
pretty good estimate of what was roaming the rails -- not perfectly accurate
because the ORER issn't perfectly accurate. The question was where were
they roaming?

Only wheel reports, yard jumbos, and detailed interchange reports could
answer that question, and obviously, the larger and more geographically
diverse the sample, the better.

Tim and I transcribed many thousand of lines from wheel reports... Car
initials, number, car type, contents, pickup and destinations locations,
train number and locomotive number. Experience taught the need to add a few
more colums prefixed by "as-written" because 50-70 year-old scribbles are
often hard to read and what conclusion you draw at the start is often not
the same was what you think 500 entries later. With these extra columns you
can go back and these for reconsideration. So call it 9 values to record
per car.

With that in hand we started to compare the observed to the expected. It
wasn't perfect. But it was remarkably close so long as the proper if,
and's, and buts were observed: post war, major trunk lines, free rolling
boxcars, no home road cars included, and expected Canadian cars adjusted to
10% of their roster to relect that only 10% of Canadian car loadings were
sent south of the border.

Might not work for Vermont... But then, should Canadian cars be excluded as
home road? I dunno. Might not work for some branchline in Florida either.
And so on. But then lets remember the expected is national, not regional.
Which is also to say that when regional observations come darn close to
matching the national expected, there might just be something to this
hypothesis.

Anyway, I have no problems with folks questioning the hypothesis... It is
only a hypothesis after all, and I should/will not use the word theory.
More and larger smaples from would certain be most useful. Which leads on
to another issue: I have quite a few more wheel reports on hand. Some
hardcopy, some scanned. 25-35 trains per, maybe 50-60 cars per train (not
all boxcars) maybe less, works out to having to do 2 or 3 books from ther
same location to get a sample large enough to study. That's 3000 to 4000
lines of data times ~9 data elements, somewhere beterrn 27,000 and 36,000
different values. Atr least excel helps copy & paste common values so the
entire 130,000 - 180,000 characters don't have to be typed. Just most of
them. In my expereince of doing this work I found it rather helpful to be
in the middle of a major depression episode as it was a task demanding a
level of involvement in which I could still function. YMMV.

Anyone ready to sign up for that? You know, transcribe all the way to the
end... Almost 200,000 letters and numbers, rather than just pulling my leg
for some copies to check out?

I'd be delighted to show you the way and in exchange for the finished
transcriptions I'll join the records to my 1950 ORER database (that's
another 10,000 lines, each having dozens of values) and return them to you
with each row extended by ORER data. Just drop me an e-mail. And for the
rest of you, please understand why I havn't transcribed more that I already
have.

Dave Nelson


Marge, imagine that you had the complete record of every freight
train on the Union Pacific over Sherman Hill for the entire year of
1953. And suppose that the total record of say, 18,000 freight trains
and 1,500,000 freight cars demonstrated perfect correspondence with
the G-N box car distribution theory of a perfectly balanced
percentage of box cars according to national fleet totals -- when
taken all together over 365 days. But when you examine each of the
365 days, suppose you notice a WIDE variation from the overall G-N
idea. Some days one finds huge numbers of SP box cars. On other days
there's an outsize number of NP box cars, or SAL box cars, or SFRD
reefers, or .... whatever.

What, in the end, has been proved? My point is that if you model a
major mainline railroad in the US, and even if you know for a fact
what every train on that railroad carried for a whole year, you will
be hard pressed to replicate it on a model railroad. No matter which
day of that year you choose to replicate. But suppose you succeed --

Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
"Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"

And here's the fun part -- even though it looks wrong to visitors, in
fact, you'd know that your model is correct AND G-N is correct!

Tim "epistemologically challenged" O'Connor


Re: Freight car slides

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

Dave,
You have pointed out a possibility of which I was not aware. As I look at the shelves upon which the slides are stored in those foot long by 2" by 2" boxes I estimate about 3 cubic feet of slides plus 20 some round slide trays - mostly 80 slides per but a couple of 140s, too. I'll investigate further. Thanks for your suggestion.
Gene Green

--- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:

Gene, you may have too many slides to make a scanning service affordable but it is something you should consider. Here are two that I understand are pretty well regarded (no experience of my own tho).

Scan Café: http://www.scancafe.com/
ScanMyPhotos: http://www.scanmyphotos.com/slidescanning.html

Dave Nelson


Re: Freight car Distribution

A. Premo <armprem0@...>
 

Thank you Dave.I really appreciate this information.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Dave Nelson
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:12 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution



Tim O'Connor wrote:

Tim's opinion, far below, is spot on.

As a reminder, when I first put together this hypothesis, it sprang from
combining the ORER -- the number of ordinary boxcars -- to the ICC September
1 survey of home cars on home roads. Taking those two facts you have a
pretty good estimate of what was roaming the rails -- not perfectly accurate
because the ORER issn't perfectly accurate. The question was where were
they roaming?

Only wheel reports, yard jumbos, and detailed interchange reports could
answer that question, and obviously, the larger and more geographically
diverse the sample, the better.

Tim and I transcribed many thousand of lines from wheel reports... Car
initials, number, car type, contents, pickup and destinations locations,
train number and locomotive number. Experience taught the need to add a few
more colums prefixed by "as-written" because 50-70 year-old scribbles are
often hard to read and what conclusion you draw at the start is often not
the same was what you think 500 entries later. With these extra columns you
can go back and these for reconsideration. So call it 9 values to record
per car.

With that in hand we started to compare the observed to the expected. It
wasn't perfect. But it was remarkably close so long as the proper if,
and's, and buts were observed: post war, major trunk lines, free rolling
boxcars, no home road cars included, and expected Canadian cars adjusted to
10% of their roster to relect that only 10% of Canadian car loadings were
sent south of the border.

Might not work for Vermont... But then, should Canadian cars be excluded as
home road? I dunno. Might not work for some branchline in Florida either.
And so on. But then lets remember the expected is national, not regional.
Which is also to say that when regional observations come darn close to
matching the national expected, there might just be something to this
hypothesis.

Anyway, I have no problems with folks questioning the hypothesis... It is
only a hypothesis after all, and I should/will not use the word theory.
More and larger smaples from would certain be most useful. Which leads on
to another issue: I have quite a few more wheel reports on hand. Some
hardcopy, some scanned. 25-35 trains per, maybe 50-60 cars per train (not
all boxcars) maybe less, works out to having to do 2 or 3 books from ther
same location to get a sample large enough to study. That's 3000 to 4000
lines of data times ~9 data elements, somewhere beterrn 27,000 and 36,000
different values. Atr least excel helps copy & paste common values so the
entire 130,000 - 180,000 characters don't have to be typed. Just most of
them. In my expereince of doing this work I found it rather helpful to be
in the middle of a major depression episode as it was a task demanding a
level of involvement in which I could still function. YMMV.

Anyone ready to sign up for that? You know, transcribe all the way to the
end... Almost 200,000 letters and numbers, rather than just pulling my leg
for some copies to check out?

I'd be delighted to show you the way and in exchange for the finished
transcriptions I'll join the records to my 1950 ORER database (that's
another 10,000 lines, each having dozens of values) and return them to you
with each row extended by ORER data. Just drop me an e-mail. And for the
rest of you, please understand why I havn't transcribed more that I already
have.

Dave Nelson

> Marge, imagine that you had the complete record of every freight
> train on the Union Pacific over Sherman Hill for the entire year of
> 1953. And suppose that the total record of say, 18,000 freight trains
> and 1,500,000 freight cars demonstrated perfect correspondence with
> the G-N box car distribution theory of a perfectly balanced
> percentage of box cars according to national fleet totals -- when
> taken all together over 365 days. But when you examine each of the
> 365 days, suppose you notice a WIDE variation from the overall G-N
> idea. Some days one finds huge numbers of SP box cars. On other days
> there's an outsize number of NP box cars, or SAL box cars, or SFRD
> reefers, or .... whatever.
>
> What, in the end, has been proved? My point is that if you model a
> major mainline railroad in the US, and even if you know for a fact
> what every train on that railroad carried for a whole year, you will
> be hard pressed to replicate it on a model railroad. No matter which
> day of that year you choose to replicate. But suppose you succeed --
>
> Now anyone who sees your perfect replication of that day will say
> "Hey, your car mix doesn't match the G-N distribution theory. So
> either G-N is wrong, or your modeling is wrong!"
>
> And here's the fun part -- even though it looks wrong to visitors, in
> fact, you'd know that your model is correct AND G-N is correct!
>
> Tim "epistemologically challenged" O'Connor






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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2804 - Release Date: 04/11/10 06:32:00


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

brianleppert@att.net
 

Tim, your SP example is a double-truss truck with spring plank, not a spring-plankless Barber S-2 like Kadee's. A 70-ton truck with 3 springs in front were not uncommon, but what Kadee is offering is apparently so.

FWIW, for my own modeling standards, I feel that the spring grouping is one of the first things to consider when chosing a truck for a model, so Kadee's may be useful. There were similar Barbers, but with a spring plank.

Brian Leppert
Tahoe Model Works
CArson City, NV

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

Ed

Yes, they were less common than the roller bearing version... But
your statement stills begs the question of "why" Kadee chose to do
an unusual truck.

A quick look through the 1960 CBC shows an SP F-70-5 flat (p.163)
with a 3-spring pack. (The truck is a roller bearing conversion so
it has no journal box lids.)

Tim O'Connor


Re: Freight car Distribution

Aley, Jeff A
 

Al,

Exceptions, I guess, would be caused by specific business relationships between shippers and consignees. In some cases, this may be as simple as the presence of a producer of raw materials in one region, and [groups of] corresponding consumers in another (e.g. helium from Kansas shipped to Naval bases in Southern California).

The "proximity" part of the hypothesis may also be affected by business relationships between the railroads (some of which are friendly, and others downright hostile).

An interesting question (to me) is whether or not these exceptions, combined with the statistical issues pointed out by Tim O'Connor, render the model useless for my model railroading purposes. I think not, but as Armand says, it is worthwhile to ask questions and check the data.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of al_brown03
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 12:02 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution



Just for the record, what exceptions are expected? Not home-road cars: they're excluded. Not assigned-service cars: they're excluded too, right? Each time this topic comes up, I keep thinking it's hard to tell what cars were in assigned service, even from wheel reports; one needs to know specific traffic patterns. The remaining exceptions would seem to be friendly connections.

I was very interested in some data presented at Cocoa Beach a few years back by Larry Kline, who has studied a Western Maryland main line. The WM is intertwined with the much larger B&O; the rival "proximity" hypothesis predicts that the WM would be flooded with B&O cars. IIRC, it isn't.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

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

Richard and all,

You want more primary data? Look no farther than Larry Osterrich's efforts with (more UP) conductor's books. You also cited the Bieber interchange book, which was not analyed the last time we had this discussion. Finally, there is Armand's Rutland data, which, to my knowledge, has not been published.

You also asked why we are re-hashing this. It is simply because Armand wants to. He has primary data, so I assume (!) that he has discovered something therein that conflicts with the model.
I also note that your primary data (your personal observations) clearly show deviation from the model. It is not clear to me if the model can be improved to account for your primary data or not.


Hypothesis: The G-N model matches the data, disregarding exceptions. The magnitude of the exceptions, for most railroads, does not affect more than a handful (e.g. five) of roadnames.

Now I need to find a way to test the hypothesis.

Regards,

-Jeff




From: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> [mailto:STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>] On Behalf Of Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 6:13 PM
To: STMFC@...<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution


I agree with Ben and others who think the Gilbert-Nelson theory is
the best approximation we have at present. More data might indeed
give us different results, but where do we find the data?

However.... It's often the case that specialized shipments on a
particular line skewed the numbers, and sometimes skewed them a whole
lot. So modelers need to be mindful of the traffic that ran on the
particular section of railroad they're modeling, and not just
slavishly follow the G-N numbers. Let me cite a couple of examples.

In traffic handed off between the GN and WP at Bieber, CA on the high
line in the late 1940s, there are many more double door box cars with
auto racks (a lot of them Santa Fe cars) than the G-N theory would
account for. The reason for that isn't far to seek; many (perhaps
most) new motor vehicles sold in the Pacific Northwest were built at
satellite assembly plants in Southern and Central California and
shipped north in automobile box cars. Many of these appear to have
been in assigned service, judging from the frequency with which the
same cars turned up repeatedly either going (loaded) or returning
(empty) in the Bieber interchange book. The Santa Fe, on which much
of that traffic originated, shipped it via the WP-GN whenever
possible, rather than turning it over to arch-rival Southern Pacific.

When I was a youth in Southern California watching Santa Fe trains
come into the Los Angeles area from the east, I thought the Akron,
Canton & Youngstown had to be a sizable railroad, to judge from the
number of AC&Y box cars I saw. It wasn't until much later that I
discovered how small the AC&Y's freight car fleet was, and figured
out that the reason I kept seeing their cars in Los Angeles was that
they were carrying tires from the Ohio tire manufacturers served by
the AC&Y to the auto assembly plants in the LA area. Similarly, I
saw more New Haven box cars in Santa Fe trains than the G-N theory
would lead one to expect, because the New Haven served Pratt &
Whitney, whose aircraft engines and parts were at that time shipped
in a steady stream to the many aircraft manufacturers and military
aviation installations in Southern California.

If you're trying to build a plausible model freight car fleet to run
on a particular line at a particular time - which is what I assume
most STMFC members are doing - generalizations about the national
freight car fleet as a whole are certainly useful, but a whole lot of
variables might result in certain cars being present in larger
numbers than the national average and others never, or hardly ever,
appearing there. It's not clear to me why we have to keep rehashing
this. Or why, yet again, we'll have someone respond, inevitably, to
the discussion by saying "it's my model railroad and I'll run
whatever cars I damn please."

Richard Hendrickson







Re: Freight car slides

water.kresse@...
 

From looking at the scanning services you need to know what you are going to do with these scans .  Base price:3000 dpi JPEG (OK for referencing or use in PPTs).  Extra cost 4000 dpi TIFF, etc. . . . . and takes up a lot more digital storage space.  Are you going to give the originals to a railroad historical society for physical storage . . . and where you can get ahold of them if needed for obtaining additional subject detail?



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 3:50:12 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Freight car slides

Gene wrote:
Between 1982 and 2004 I exposed miles of Kodachrome on freight cars,
mainly those from before 1960 which were usually in MOW service when
I found them.  Kodachrome slides have much less utility than they
once did.  Now they need to be converted to digital images.  

Does anyone have experience converting slides to digital?
Would anyone care to recommend some particular scanner?
Has anyone had experience with Wolverine F2D200 35mm Film Scanner?

If anyone cares to respond please do so off list.  My email is
bierglaeser at yahoo dot com.

Thanks in advance,

Gene Green

Gene, you may have too many slides to make a scanning service affordable but
it is something you should consider.  Here are two that I understand are
pretty well regarded (no experience of my own tho).

Scan Café: http://www.scancafe.com/
ScanMyPhotos: http://www.scanmyphotos.com/slidescanning.html

Dave Nelson


Re: CINCINNATI-INDIANAPOLIS & WESTERN RAILROAD

rfederle@...
 

Yes, the Cardinal runs there (or did, I am in Louisiana but I bbelieve it still does) and used to stop in Hamilton but that ended a few years ago. Yes, when I was there last it is rare to see it in daylight.

The one place I know that had B&O service (and predecessors before that) was the Belt Line. It branches north off the CI&W main, just west of Hamilton at Millville Ave. That line sees cars come in now from CSX to Woods Yard. It used to serve the, now an office, Pillsbury Plant and the former Champion Paper mill, now Smart Papers. Smart Papers is served by U.S.Rail and formerly the Great Miami Railway.

The next point west of Hamilton would be McGonagle and then Cottage Grove Indiana. There was switching at Cottage Grove and interchanged with the C&O. McGonagle (not positive of spelling here) only had sidings as far as I know/ I believe they did have a unit or two stationed there though.

Robert Federle
---- water.kresse@... wrote:



Is that the section that the AmTrak Cardinal takes between Indy and Cinncy . . . in the dark if on time?  There was a Geep set off on a spur somewhere on that line to service local industries.



Al Kresse


----- Original Message -----
From: rfederle@...
To: STMFC@...
Cc: "brooklynbus" <mec-bml@...>
Sent: Sunday, April 11, 2010 2:53:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: Re: [STMFC] CINCINNATI-INDIANAPOLIS & WESTERN RAILROAD

Hello Joel,

This title caught my eye. I am originally from Hamilton Ohio. The CI&W branched off the the CH&D there and headed west to Indianapolis as you probably already know. I cant help much for the info you seek but I will be following this topic pretty close.

The Depot in Hamilton still stands and I having a custom model done of it. Maybe produce kits too, not sure yet. It was originally two seperate building, one being the CI&W and the othe, a two story building, being the CH&D. After the B&O acquisition the two buidings had the open air portion between the two buildings closed in to form a single structure. It hasn't really changed much, outwardly, from what it was.

Anyway, thanks Joel for posting the inquiry. I will be interested to see where it goes and what I can learn as well.

Robert Federle
New Iberia, Louisiana


Re: Freight car slides

Dave Nelson
 

Gene wrote:
Between 1982 and 2004 I exposed miles of Kodachrome on freight cars,
mainly those from before 1960 which were usually in MOW service when
I found them. Kodachrome slides have much less utility than they
once did. Now they need to be converted to digital images.

Does anyone have experience converting slides to digital?
Would anyone care to recommend some particular scanner?
Has anyone had experience with Wolverine F2D200 35mm Film Scanner?

If anyone cares to respond please do so off list. My email is
bierglaeser at yahoo dot com.

Thanks in advance,

Gene Green

Gene, you may have too many slides to make a scanning service affordable but
it is something you should consider. Here are two that I understand are
pretty well regarded (no experience of my own tho).

Scan Café: http://www.scancafe.com/
ScanMyPhotos: http://www.scanmyphotos.com/slidescanning.html

Dave Nelson


Re: NEW KADEE TRUCKS

Tim O'Connor
 

Ed

Yes, they were less common than the roller bearing version... But
your statement stills begs the question of "why" Kadee chose to do
an unusual truck.

A quick look through the 1960 CBC shows an SP F-70-5 flat (p.163)
with a 3-spring pack. (The truck is a roller bearing conversion so
it has no journal box lids.)

Kadee's S-2-B also can be used to represent 100 ton solid bearing
trucks by changing the wheels to 36". Such trucks were quite common
in the 1960's and could still be found in the 1990's.

Tim O'Connor

Perhaps Sam Clarke of Kadee will provide a better explanation, but I've
spoken to Sam about their 70-ton Barber plain-bearing truck (#566) with
3 outboard springs. The truck is accurate for a specific 50' PS-1 box
car (built ca. early 1960s) that Kadee has plans to produce. I made a
search of other prototype cars having trucks of similar appearance, and
about all I could find were a few series of Greenville gondola cars
(Life-Like model). That's not to say my search was exhaustive, but
rather I limited my search to prototype cars in which reasonably
accurate models exist. It's certainly possible I've missed some.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins

107321 - 107340 of 196872