G-N versus Consist Data for train construction
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
After several days of reading various views on the value of the G-N
hypothesis AS FAR AS PROVIDING A GUIDE FOR BUILDING A BOX CAR FLEET, I think the following applies...not unlike Charlie Vlk's conclusion. First, a small minority [ including myself ] of modelers on the STMFC have access to actual frt train consists. There are those that cover the UP from Laramie to Rawlins in 1938, 1947, 1949, 1951, and for Cheyenne to Laramie...1956. Given the relatively small number of trains covered...34 during about a month in the 1949 book...compared to the number operating [ the ratio is about 1/35 ], the consist information simply is too small to reach definitive conclusions about the other 34 trains in a given day...let alone what happened during the other 11 months. OTOH, the G-N hypothesis does give a possible population over the long run if one makes certain assumptions...for example, that "away" cars were more or less distributed randomly among other RR's. The actual train consists appear to deviate considerably at times from the G-N hypothesis [ the infamous SP cars for example but others as well ] but, again, this is a short run view. Those that have actual consists might like to model them even with compression. Uh oh. For those few who don't know [ surely they care <G> ], I have video of a UP frt train pulling 36 SP box cars in a train of 96 cars. That is 37.5% SP box cars. OK...if I assume a max train length [ compression due to layout size ] of 35 cars, the train will need 13 SP box cars and, given that I compress to 8 frt trains down from 35 in a day, I'll probably need about 6 more SP box cars so that they are represented in the other 7 trains. That means that I will need 19 SP box cars in my fleet. However, SP box cars only represent 4% of the total national fleet. So, if I use the G-N hypothesis as a guide I'll need about 475 box cars in order for me to provide the SP cars. However, I find that an EJ&E box car is in one of the trains in my frt conductor book. EJ&E box cars represent only .002 of the national fleet. Hence, [ 0.95 cars ] I can have almost one car [ well, I'll leave off one of the cut levers ]. However, there is an FEC box car showing in a video near Hermosa Tunnel in 1953. FEC had 190 box cars...or 0.0002 of the national fleet. My 475 car population will provide me with 0.095 cars. That might get me 4 ribs on an end. Nooooo problem. I'll just increase my box car population to 4750. That will just about get me the car [ again, missing a cut lever ] and frequent visits to a therapist in Orlando. The G-N theory is interesting and useful because it tells us that box cars populated the various RR's in proportions somewhat similar to the national fleet over "long" periods of time. It doesn't appear to help much in modeling trains because trains often were "designed" for specific tasks [ a lumber train, for instance ] and such a train might draw cars from a year's population at rates not similar to other trains. IOW, a model lumber train on the UP originating from Cal might require 15 SP box cars while a model merchandise train from the northwest might require no SP box cars. Those of us with frt train consists are fortunate IF we are modelers modeling real trains...even those compressed...because we can simply acquire the cars we need [ or try ]. Fortunately for me I only have consists for about 70 trains in two different yrs. Those without such consists are left to use the G-N hypothesis to provide a frt car population. I don't know what one without consists would do to build individual trains...I suppose some manipulation of the G-N data. It can be done, of course, but the frt train consists I have access to seem to show trains of cars NOT in the mode of distribution that G-N proposes. For example, my frt conductor book shows a train of 40 MTY reefers...all but 3 PFE, 2 box cars in the middle of the reefers [ one loaded GM&O going to Butte, MT ], 2 tank cars and 26 box cars loaded with bauxite ore headed to the Northwest...not one UP box car [ or PA ] in the mix. There were 4 CN box cars, however, and 3 Frisco, 3 Q and, of course, the required NP. Not exactly your national fleet. I would also think that some sort of "small number" factor would need to be used with the G-N. How else to get that FEC car? Mike Brock
|
|
D&RGW General Arrangement Drawings for Flat Cars on eBay
rwitt_2000
Gentlemen:
There are two general arrangement drawings listed on eBay for the D&RGW. Series 22200-22249 built 1951 with bulkheads for canister service (the set includes a 8x10 photo), Item number:170472813001 Series 23000-23099 built 1957, Item number:170472814830 Happy bidding, Bob Witt
|
|
Re: CGW 1934 X29
Clark Propst
Ron, the late CGW X29 style cars I have on the computer are all 87000s with Coil-Elliptic trucks.
Clark Propst
|
|
Re: Lumber Loading
Clark Propst
One of the older local modelers told me about working Saturdays while still in school unloading box cars. Again, being thin he was put in the car to hand out the first pieces. He said sometimes he'd have to work for a 1/2 hr of longer to get the first piece out. He also said he really enjoyed the smell of the fresh wood.
NP 26619 LUMBER 119 ALBERT LEA BACK HAUL The car listed above was in an M&StL Minneapolis to Peoria time freight. This car must be ping-ponging across the railroad waiting for a buyer? Clark Propst
|
|
Re: Lumber Loading
Greg Martin
I'm stumped. Why would there be no lumber on flat cars in Oct-Dec of 1951? Was this the time period after the Streamliner accident (a piece of lumber shifted on a flat car, and broke the windows of a passing Streamliner, showering the passengers with broken glass) ??
Regards, -Jeff Jeff, You have to look at what generally shipped on flatcars during this era and understand the commodity as well as the industry. In all freight movements there is a correlation to the commodities. As Dennis said (and I agree and I am sure Tony will as well) that most cars loaded with dimensional lumber moved in boxcars (think weather protect and the weather of your snapshot period). The rule is timber moves on flatcars. Historically in the lumber business timber doesn't move much at all during late fall and winter, the inventory is run down to nearly nothing at the lumber yards, timber doesn't yard well. But if you were to move your snapshot forward the lumber industry does move in much higher volumes starting in late January through the last week of May, then it cycles down through the end of August, September is flat to down with a slight pick up about the 10th of October and if the market is good as well as the weather the market runs until the first week in December and then goes quiet. If the storms of November come early the market dies until late January again. If the national economy has a recession as it did in the mid 50s all bets are off. Greg Martin
|
|
ORER .pdf's on Google
Dave Nelson
There appear to be 4 full editions in Google books that are downloadable as
.pdf's. They are from 1904, 1912, 1913, and 1917. Use the search terms railway equipment register and specify full view only. Dave Nelson
|
|
Re: CGW 1934 X29
mopacfirst
I'll refine my original question just a bit.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
By the end of this time frame (1960), were there very many of the Dalman two-level trucks still around on these CGW cars? The CGW color guide suggests not, but I'm curious if this is a statistical quirk based on the photos that made it into the book. The coil-elliptic spring truck, I can certainly see that. Ron Merrick
--- In STMFC@..., "brianleppert@..." <brianleppert@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Lumber Loading
Aley, Jeff A
First of all, "THANKS" to Tim, Tom, and Dennis for describing how lumberyards worked back in the 1950's.
Second of all, a quick perusal of several UP Frt Conductor's books showed something surprising: There was PLENTY of lumber shipped in box cars, especially in SP cars (no surprise there). But there were ZERO flat cars of lumber in the Traud 1951 book. We're talking about 35 trains and 2400 total cars here! Then I looked at the other UP books (spreadsheets) that I have. ALL of the other books do show lumber on flat cars, in years both earlier and later (1941 Nelson, 1947 Fraley(?), and 1956 Novi). I'm stumped. Why would there be no lumber on flat cars in Oct-Dec of 1951? Was this the time period after the Streamliner accident (a piece of lumber shifted on a flat car, and broke the windows of a passing Streamliner, showering the passengers with broken glass) ?? Regards, -Jeff From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of thomas christensen Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:25 PM To: STMFC@... Subject: [STMFC] Lumber Loading --- On Tue, 4/13/10, soolinehistory <destorzek@...<mailto:destorzek%40mchsi.com>> wrote: Speaking of lumber -- anyone know when the first "wrapped"I still remember lumber in boxcars in 1959 or '60, maybe a couple years later. Drywall also originally was shipped in boxcars, which must have been an absolutely miserable job to unload. Drywall lent itself to shipping on bulkhead flats, since it was large flat sheets and it didn't have to be piled very high to max out the car's capacity. Lumber was a different story; while large timbers could and were shipped on flatcars, the pile of dimensional lumber got awfully high and tippy before the car's load limit was reached. --- We received flat car loads of just about everything (wrapped and unwrapped) - 1x and 2x spruce/pine, timbers, scaffold planking. Between the different lumber, moldings, and other items, 6-7 cars a week were normal.
|
|
Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report
Aley, Jeff A
Tony,
It turns out (with a bit more digging through my personal archives) that the data is NOT from Tim Gilbert, but instead from Dave Nelson. This explains why my attempts with the oujia board have been unsuccessful. And at the time (over 10 yrs ago!) Dave readily conceded that [Quote] The problem could be the regional data published by the AAR would vary significantly on a road by road basis within each region (not too surprising a thought). The omission of these variances makes the numbers above rather suspect. Perhaps they are good enough as a general guideline, perhaps worthless. I'll leave that conclusion to each reader. [End Quote] Regards, -Jeff From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Anthony Thompson Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 10:25 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report Aley, Jeff A wrote: Yes it is a big assumption. I suggest a séance orI realize that the alternative to the assumption is to ignore the data. But certainly among the roads in that ICC grouping are quite different situations as to bridge vs. originating and terminating traffic. That said, I will comment that I was intrigued with the particular percentage, as it is not far from what I've calculated for home road cars on the SP, based on photos. (Yeah, yeah, photos are a skimpy data set, etc.) 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@...<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com> Publishers of books on railroad history [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Aley, Jeff A wrote:
Yes it is a big assumption. I suggest a séance orI realize that the alternative to the assumption is to ignore the data. But certainly among the roads in that ICC grouping are quite different situations as to bridge vs. originating and terminating traffic. That said, I will comment that I was intrigued with the particular percentage, as it is not far from what I've calculated for home road cars on the SP, based on photos. (Yeah, yeah, photos are a skimpy data set, etc.) 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...help with ICC report
Aley, Jeff A
Tony,
Yes it is a big assumption. I suggest a séance or use of a oujia board to contact Tim Gilbert and ask him why he made such an assumption, and what are the implications. Regards, -Jeff From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Anthony Thompson Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 9:12 AM To: STMFC@... Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report Aley, Jeff A wrote: For each ICC region (e.g. "Central West"), the percentage of boxPretty giant assumption there, Jeff. 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@...<mailto:thompson%40signaturepress.com> Publishers of books on railroad history
|
|
Re: G-N Hypothesis - Is it just for the "Main Line"?
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Jim Dick wrote:
This situation happened in the PNW. A NP document listing reasons why additional fifty foot double door boxcars needed to be purchased gave the following: During the early 1940's and during WWII, defense shipping from east (of the Mississippi) and auto traffic from Detroit provided plenty of fifty foot double door boxcars the lumber mills craved. They could load these and send them home in the general direction. ( a well balanced siuation)Yes, I have copies of some SP memos about confiscating empty 50-ft. double-door cars throughout the system, and moving them to Oregon for lumber loading. It's evident in both SP records and in the ORER that SP regularly purchased lots of flat cars and double-door cars, in significant part to protect lumber traffic. That's why lumber trains on the SP were VERY heavily home-road cars. 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...help with ICC report
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Aley, Jeff A wrote:
For each ICC region (e.g. "Central West"), the percentage of box cars on home rails is given (28.50%).Pretty giant assumption there, Jeff. 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: G-N Hypothesis - Is it just for the "Main Line"?
np328
- In STMFC@..., "Dave Nelson" <Lake_Muskoka@...> wrote:
Now if we take this example as fact -- for discussion purposes only -what we have is a situation where the inbounds and outbound are not well balanced, with the clear result there would be little need to hang on to home road boxcars at this location as there would always be plenty of empty foreign road cars on hand. One could also assume there might be locations where the reverse was true -- that is, almost no foreign road boxcars but a steady demand for empties. And with that in mind, lots of possibilities crop up: any line passing thru a good number of small towns, each of which having one or more locations that could ship quite a few cars -- lumber mills, Dave Nelson This situation happened in the PNW. A NP document listing reasons why additional fifty foot double door boxcars needed to be purchased gave the following: During the early 1940's and during WWII, defense shipping from east (of the Mississippi) and auto traffic from Detroit provided plenty of fifty foot double door boxcars the lumber mills craved. They could load these and send them home in the general direction. ( a well balanced siuation) Then as the war traffic winded down and auto factories in California opened up (Richard Hendrickson's post 89730), this created a need for additional cars of this type. And from what I have found, given a choice - the mills preferred fifty footers over forty footers. Perhaps Tony Thompson can comment on that regarding SP shippers. For NP/SP&S it certainly was true. One other thing that I have noticed that is missing from these discussions - tha age of fleets. I have seen in correspondence that some railroads tended to have younger fleets of cars and these did have a higher demand by shippers. In many listings, records I have seen not only list the number of home road/competitors cars, but the age also. Not sure how that would be correlated, I can post scans of these listings if someone would like to see these. Jim Dick - Roseville, MN
|
|
Re: Freight car Distribution
Charlie Vlk
The issuance of David Leider's fine history "Wisconsin Central in Illinois" has triggered some thinking about the traffic on the CB&Q that might be considered as an example of why Freight Car Distribution is not just a statistical exercise. The book gives in-depth background about the railroads building into Chicago in competition with the WC and the intrique of that era.
One would think that the GN and NP would have had financial motivation to channel traffic from the owning railroads to the Q from Minneapolis after Hill bought the Burlington. But this was not the case..... he artificially controlled the existing traffic allocation to the SOO, M&StL, C&NW, MILW and CGW that existed prior to getting control of the Q. A recent post by a BN retiree on the CB&Q list confirmed that this even-handed treatment of the competition persisted until the day of the BN merger, when in the middle of a recession the traffic on the Twin Cities Line doubled overnight at their expense. While this may seem to argue in favor of a statistical solution, the point is that traffic patterns had political, economic, physical route, and regulatory overlays that influenced whose cars showed up where. The UP/SP (and C&NW) have been cited as examples of this. Since most of us model specific chunks of a real railroad or model our own road after one the best guide for fleet composition would be source evidence of what cars typically showed up on that line... wheel reports, photos of trains, yards, waybills, photos of industries. National statistics need to be tweaked with the local truth. Charlie Vlk
|
|
Re: CGW 1934 X29
brianleppert@att.net
Ron, The CGW 85000 and 89000 series box cars came with Dalman 2-Level trucks (available from Tahoe Model Works). However, the 87000 series cars were built with Coil-Elliptic trucks, where a leaf spring is centered between the coil springs (also available from TMW).
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Those leaf springs worked fine as long as they stayed lubricated, from what I've read. But they tended to dry out and were removed in later years, resulting in a double truss truck with a wide gap between the springs (and also from TMW). Brian Leppert Tahoe Model Works Carson City, NV
--- In STMFC@..., "mopacfirst" <ron.merrick@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Lumber Loading
I am planning on modeling some Rock Island "hide loading" box cars, maybe by summer,lol! I can just imagine the smell of these cars in the hot summer!!
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Rich Christie
--- On Tue, 4/13/10, Jim Hayes <jimhayes97225@...> wrote:
From: Jim Hayes <jimhayes97225@...>
|
|
Re: CGW 1934 X29
mopacfirst
One more question about these cars.
The link to steamfreightcars.com shows one of these cars less than ten years after delivery. In the CGW Color Guide, several of these cars are shown near the end of their existence, and (whether rebuilt or not) almost all of them have a more conventional double-truss truck instead of the Dalman two-level. Is it fair to say that most of them had these trucks replaced, and if so when and why? Ron Merrick
|
|
Box/auto distribution 1938
Wendye Ware
Hi Everyone
Here is some info on the distribution of box and auto cars for trains on the U.P. mainline between Laramie and Rawlins in 1938. The data are compiled from three Freight Conductors' Train Books written by conductors Ferguson, Fraley, and Fitz. Ferguson's data are from May and June of 1938, while Fraley's and Fitz's are from September-October of the same year. In the tables below the information from the train books is compared to national averages based on the January, 1938 ORER. The national values count only box, auto and ventilated cars in interchange service on Class I U.S. roads or their lessees. The tables show the road initial, the number of box/auto cars in the conductors' books, the percentage these cars represent, and the national percentage. Only roads with 5 or more cars reported in the train books are listed. Roads in which the percentage of cars tallied from the conductors' books exceeds the national percentage. Road: Num; Book %; Nat % SP: 201; 15.1%; 3.3% CB&Q: 125; 9.4%; 3.0% NYC: 99; 7.4%; 6.1% MILW: 83; 6.2%; 4.7% CNW: 64; 4.8%; 3.2% WP: 54; 4.1%; 0.4% GTW: 53; 4.0%; 1.3% RI: 44; 3.3%; 3.1% MP: 33; 2.5%; 2.3% IC: 32; 2.4%; 2.3% SLSF: 31; 2.3%; 2.0% PM: 26; 2.0%; 1.5% DT&I: 21; 1.6%; 0.3% NKP: 15; 1.1%; 1.0% T&P: 15; 1.1%; 0.5% T&NO: 14; 1.1%; 1.0% CGW: 8; 0.6%; 0.5% CMO: 7; 0.5%; 0.5% B&LE: 5; 0.4%; 0.0% Roads in which the percentage of cars tallied from the conductors' books is less than the national percentage. Road: Num; Book %; Nat % PRR: 79; 5.9%; 10.4% ATSF: 36; 2.7%; 4.9% MC: 27; 2.0%; 2.5% B&O: 24; 1.8%; 4.4% NP: 24; 1.8%; 3.1% SOUTHERN: 19; 1.4%; 3.6% WABASH: 18; 1.4%; 1.6% GN: 15; 1.1%; 3.5% SOO: 15; 1.1%; 1.4% ERIE: 13; 1.0%; 1.4% L&N: 11; 0.8%; 2.2% C&O: 9; 0.7%; 1.4% CCC&STL: 7; 0.5%; 1.5% N&W: 7; 0.5%; 1.0% D&RGW: 6; 0.5%; 0.6% M-K-T: 6; 0.5%; 0.6% DL&W: 5; 0.4%; 1.3% FWIW the percentage of box/auto cars that were UP is 41% - 935 cars of a total of 2,267. (1,332 cars were used to calculate the Book % in the tables.) Best wishes, Larry Ostresh Laramie, Wyoming
|
|
Re: Lumber Loading
Jim Hayes
Greg said
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Tom, did you ever get carloads of 1x4 and 1x6x6' fence boards of California Incense Cedar in a box? I can still smell those SP boxes with the "pencil cedar" smell. Which brings back memories of boxcar smells. In the Summer of 1959 (whew, just under the wire) I worked for a vinegar company in St. Paul, Minnesota. One method of shipping vinegar was in cleaned (my job) used whiskey barrels which arrived by boxcar. It was mid-Summer and hot and we had a boxcar to unload. Wow what a smell. By the time we finished we were high just on the fumes. Jim Hayes Portland Oregon www.sunshinekits.com
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:27 PM, <tgregmrtn@...> wrote:
|
|