Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Ray Breyer
Anthony Thompson wrote: And the point flies completely out the window if you model the MWR as an online shipper, for any one of the three railroads that connected with them in central Indiana. The same applies to other "novelty" shippers like the C&IM, MRS, or anyone else with a fleet of semi-captive service boxcars, thus completely screwing up the Gilbert-Nelson model.I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>.  Essentially, the G-S hypothesis is a useful STARTING POINT for assembling a boxcar fleet. But there are far too many "fudge factor fixes" in it to make it a true theory. Direct connections, home road car numbers, captive service fleets, moody yardmasters, picky customers, goofy routings, and various types of specialty loading racks, not to mention the ever popular "100 railroads with .1% of the fleet: pick one to model, any one!" tend to make any real car counting exercise just a fun numbers game.  Ray Breyer Lies, damned lies, and statistics  (The MWR is a semi-online shipper on my layout: I need at least six cars in a 350 box fleet. There's a model RR that's about to get underway in CA that'll need their entire roster, since that NKP mainline goes right through Muncie) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
Re: The third hand
Jack Burgess
Hey Jack,subcat=wal That might work well Joe...the teeth on regular alligator clips don't "match" each other, making them worthless for small items. Jack Burgess www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
|
|
Re: The third hand
Joseph Melhorn
Hey Jack,
Maybe these small smooth jaw alligator clamps would work for you. Go to this link and look at the picture on part #34, about half way down the page: <http://www.electronicplus.com/content/ProductPage.asp?maincat=wa&subcat=wal I have used these to hold small parts, wires, etc., for gluing or soldering. I replaced the alligator clips with these on a set of third hands that I picked up at Harbor Freight. At one time, Radio Shack carried them, I don't know if they still do. Joe Melhorn Orangevale, CA I would like to modify my Xacto Third Hand...the alligator clamps are worthless with small parts. They need to be replaced with spring clamps with parallel jaws but I haven't found something like that...I want to be able to hold things like .008" wire, etc.
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Tony Thompson writes:
"I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>." Perhaps. But two issues stand out. One, I don't believe box car distribution is random. The data doesn't seem to support it...although box car appearances may well be random along with a fudge factor...what one might call the Coefficient of Association...to be used in some cases [ UP/SP, for exampler ] to alter a random distribution. Two, in many cases we modelers model frt trains...not frt fleets. IOW, there are known train examples...the infamous UP frt train with fully 50% of its cars being SP box cars, tank car trains, lumber trains, UP trains consisting entirely of box cars with no UP box cars in the consist, etc. In order to model them, we likely find ourselves with frt car fleets that don't match that which MIGHT reflect the total frt cars active in a given long term time span. For sure, train consists tell us that frt train populations are definitely NOT random draws from a frt car fleet that might appear over a long period. Instead, frt trains seem to be populated according to the train's function which...at least on the UP in Wyoming...were unique in our time period. I might have a photo of a UP frt train with a Lackawanna hopper car on Sherman Hill [ I do ] and I might like to model it. One must, however, be aware that that &*^%*& Lackawanna hopper didn't show up every day....except in my case for which, of course, somewhat like Phil, the weatherman in Pittsburgh, every day is May 14, 1954. Mike Brock
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
George Courtney
For pure entertainment's sake, wouldn't research into the Ball
Glass records of where their customers were located give a clue as to where such boxcars would appear? Where would Ball Glass jars be shipped? To food processors and/or wholesale grocers? I think of their market as home canning with the jars bought by consumers where? Or was the glass jar market elsewhere? George Courtney - In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote: have an MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm.
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Jack Burgess
John asked:
Do you have any data showing which cars arrived loaded and which wereNot by ownership. Incoming box car loads, other than LCL, included shipping bags for cement, lead baryte, and jasper; some mining supplies; and 55-gallon drums of diesel (for a standard gauge railroad quarry operation accessible only by incline). Outgoing loads included bagged lead baryte (drilling mud), bagged cement, bagged jasper, and finished lumber products. In August 1930, the National Lead shipped out the following 21 loaded cars via these cars and to these destinations: SP 14723 Goleta CA SP 49026 Modesto CA SP 41288 Modesto CA SP 40263 Modesto CA SP 23433 Olig CA (I don't know where that was) ATSF 126378 Hobbs NM ATSF 128533 Hobbs NM SP 21087 Hobbs NM SP 23054 Hobbs NM ATSF 125210 Hobbs NM ATSF 123019 Hobbs NM T&NO 54056 Hobbs NM SP 24207 Hobbs NM SP 27401 Hobbs NM SP 28532 Hobbs NM ATSF 127713 Los Angeles CA ATSF 128185 Los Angeles CA ATSF 130312 Los Angeles CA MC 98521 Los Angeles CA SP 18398 Bakersfield CA SP 125846 Bakersfield CA A total of 13 out of 21 of these cars were SP or T&NO cars or 62%.. As far as loads from the lumber mill, I don't have car ownership but I do have shipping records for August 1939, the month/year that I am modeling. The YV handled 123 loaded box cars of lumber that month. Of those, 78% were shipped out via the SP interchange and 22% via the ATSF interchange. Of the SP loads, 57% were shipped out of state while 43% of the loads were shipped within California. The loads for the ATSF were 70%/30%. When added to the empty cars on hand data, it "seems" that the SP was providing most of the cars and were definitely getting most of the loads. I doubt that this was accidental or due to the clerks getting a bottle of whiskey at Christmas (nor did the SP own a portion of the YV). The YV and SP had a long relationship....long distance Pullmans (and some from LA) on the SP were handed over to the YV to be taken to Yosemite. When the YV needed a diner each summer, they leased it from the SP. When the YV needed some extra engines, they got them from the SP. After a severe flood in late 1937 wiped out miles of YV roadbed, it was the SP that provided a loan to quickly repair the line...the SP needed that connection to Yosemite restored before the beginning of the 1938 summer tourist season. So, regardless of percentages of freight cars and other things, the YV was a good source of revenue to the SP and working closely with the SP allowed the YV to reciprocate for SP's support. Tony....Is that an argument which might support the idea of "proximity interchange"? Jack Burgess www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Mike Brock does a bit less analysis than Dave Evans, then writes:
Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can have an MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm.I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>. 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 on smaller RRs
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dave Evans wrote (in small part):
A) This helps justify having a significant collection of rare cars, as long as there is a large fleet of "core cars" that can be quickly accumulated and put in operating order (e.g. shake the box).Very thoughtful discussion, Dave, and I appreciate the thrust of your analysis--and I think it's a sensible way to demonstrate one way the Gilbert-Nelson idea can be expressed in practice. I've saved your message in my "layout thoughts" folder for future reference. 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 on smaller RRs
Mike Brock <brockm@...>
Richard Hendrickson says:
"Fact #2: The 1940 Car Builders' Cyclopedia shows a total of 738,509 box cars in service on the North American railroads in 1/39. That means that out of 9,847 box cars, one was an MWR car. And y'all think that one car had even the most remote likelihood of turning up on the Yosemite Valley RR?" Well...Hmmm. On UP in Wyoming, we know that during March 1949, the 35 frt trains in Fraley's book moved about 75.7 cars per train [ did I count them? Of course not ]. Of these, about 30 cars per train were box cars [ all those reefers mess up the data ]. So...in a given day [ coincidentally, the Wyoming Div saw about 35 frt trains per day ], about 1050 box cars moved across Wyoming. The odds of an MWR making an appearance randomly are 1 in 9847. In 10 days, UP would have seen 10500 cars so, if random, one MWR car would appear in Wyoming. OTOH, the appearance of the MWR car...or the others for that matter...might not be random. That would be nice because, in that case we could forget all this nonsense [ hmmm ]. Anyhow, if random, every 10 days, one MW car will appear. Wow! Great! Hmmm. There IS one tiny problem. Of the 738,509 box cars, 18,588 are MP cars [ using the 1953 ORER data ]. Thus, every 40 box cars there will be one MP box car...or in 10500 cars, 262 MP box cars will appear. Worse, every 24 box cars will be one SP box car. In 10 days I should see 437 SP box cars....or 44 SP box cars per day. Hmmm. About 900 Pennsy box cars will make an appearance in 10 days...90 per day....2.6 per train. Of course, I only run 8 frt trains in a given op session and I compress them by about 60%. Thus, I will need 1.6 Pennsy box cars per train...or 12.5 Pennsy box cars in 8 trains. My frt trains will average about 30 cars and about 12 box cars. These 8 frt trains will move 96 box cars per session. Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can have an MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm. Anyone need an MWR box car? Mike Brock
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Fortunately, Jack Burgess has a stronger grasp of reality than numerous others on this list and is sensible enough not to run a model of a MWR box car on his YV layout and then have to explain and rationalize it to every halfway knowledgeable person who comes in the door and raises an eyebrow when they see it. In addition to accuracy, one objective of prototype modeling is plausibility. If something is implausible, don't do it.This is an important point and of course goes far beyond freight car distribution. But I'd modify Richard's advice to say that if you are doing something in your modeling which is, let's say, of limited plausibility but DOES conform to a prototype practice, you need to demonstrate same. I have a friend who put prototype photographs on his layout fascia for anything in a scene which might strike some as implausible. 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 on smaller RRs
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Armand Premo wrote:
While the Nelson-Gilbert study is a valuable tool it does not apply in every instance. Regional carriers will get more traffic from railroads that either directly connect or are in close proximity. After carefully studying wheel reports for several years I must conclude that what I possess is a better indicator of what ran on the roads that I model.Company annual reports also support my findings.Armand is lucky enough to have substantial documentation of freight traffic for his road--few of us are so lucky. But I don't think it, of itself, proves the "proximity interchange" argument. Other roads do not seem to obey that argument, so in Armand's case (as in a number of others), we see that each road can be different. 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 on smaller RRs
armprem
Dave,Which road do you model?Armand Premo
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: "devansprr" <devans1@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:18 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs --- In STMFC@..., "Mark Pierce" <marcoperforar@...> wrote:Actually, there are many reporting remarks well under 0.1%. In fact an
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
devansprr
--- In STMFC@..., "Mark Pierce" <marcoperforar@...> wrote:
Actually, there are many reporting remarks well under 0.1%. In fact an analysis of the 1943 ORER type X and XM shows that the 100 smallest box car fleets (per reporting mark) had a total of approximately 1860 X and XM cars - which was 0.2% of the national fleet - which would equate to only one of those reporting marks in a 500 box car fleet. In 1943: The top 11 roads had 50% of the fleet. Sorry Mike, but NP placed 14th, with 2.6% of the national fleet. But any WWII layout with at least 40 box cars needs one NP box. For some idea of the "random" car, in addition to the 100 smallest fleets, another 50 roads had less than 0.1% of the fleet - so Ann Arbor (the biggest fleet of the 50), would be one out of every 1000 box car appearances on a layout. Rather than think in terms of someone's fleet, another way to look at it would be the number of cars routed out of staging each session. So for a layout that moves 200 X and XM cars out of staging per op session the Ann Arbor car would appear once every 5 sessions. With the largest fleet, 22 PRR X and XM's would need to be moved on scene each session. Five NP boxcars out of staging would be appropriate per session. But for the 100 smallest fleets, only one car, picked from a collection of these railroad's box cars, would appear every 4th session. None of the cars from this "smallest" road pool would appear 3 out of 4 sessions. Another way to look at this is that 39 road's box cars would "earn" an appearance every session, totaling 178 of the 200 boxcars appearing per session. (Katy is the last "regular" on the list) It would then be appropriate for the final 22 cars used during the session to be drawn from a fleet of "occasional" cars that would not be used every session. 18 more roads would earn an appearance at least every other session (including well known roads such as T&P, Cotton Belt, D&H, WM & WP.) These roads would constitute about 14 cars per session. About 40 roads could be used for 7 more of the 200 cars - some appearing once every 3rd session (KCS), and a few only every 20th session (e.g. NWP). One car per session could be drawn from a pool of 117 reporting marks. For a volume of 200 cars on-scene per session, and assuming that after 5 sessions all of the operators have forgotten when they last saw the rare, small road X/XM, then I would need a fleet of 178 cars to appear every session (from 39 roads), another 33 or more cars to appear one to four times per 5 sessions (from 33 roads), and anywhere from 25 to 147 cars with 147 different reporting marks that would appear only once per five sessions (it would be appropriate for 5 different cars from this pool to appear each session). Note that popular roads such as Rutland, Clinchfield, Georgia, SP&S, DM&IR, TH&B fall into this "once per five session" pool! Minimum fleet would be 236 cars - upon entering staging, 89% of the cars entering staging would go right back out, but the other 11% would need to be "fiddled" between sessions. This analysis is obviously very hypothetical, but it leads to a few conclusions for a layout that moves 200 boxcars out of staging each session: 1) Small road cars can appear in medium size fleets, but about 11% of the fleet may need to be fiddled between sessions (into or out of storage). 2) For an out-of-staging traffic level of 200 cars per op session, an additional 18% of the fleet would be required to model the "rare" cars, assuming that everyone forgets what they saw more than 5 op sessions ago (this pool gets larger as everyone's memory gets longer). 3) Half the cars that appear each session would come from just 11 roads. While this might seem boring, it might actually enhance the railfanning aspect of trying to spot the rare cars - diamonds in the rough so to speak. Personnal lessons learned: A)This helps justify having a significant collection of rare cars, as long as there is a large fleet of "core cars" that can be quickly accumulated and put in operating order (e.g. shake the box). b) Fiddling may be a lot more necessary than originally thought, if "appearances" are to match the "Nelson-Gilbert" model. This has a significant impact on staging design, and tends against the "put staging under the layout" concept. At these traffic levels, for each train entering staging, 1 in 10 X/XM's will need to be changed out. c) To implement the Nelson-Gilbert distribution model, a lot more car storage will be required at the fiddle location - enough space for at least 40-50 boxcars. One other quick Calculation (still based on operator memories only lasting five sessions): For a smaller layout with 50 X/XM's entering from staging per session, - 17 roads appear every session = 34 cars (includes one NP boxcar for Mike) - 27 roads (and at least 27 cars) that appear at least once every 5 sessions. 12 cars each session from this pool. - A pool of at least 20 cars, where each car will appear not more than once every 5 sessions, with 4 cars from this pool appearing each session. Note that this pool includes roads such as CGW, Cotton Belt, D&H, MEC, B&M, WM, WP, KCS, CofG - so these are not "rare" roads. - For the smaller fleet, 1 out of 3 of the boxcars will need to be "fiddled" into and out of storage every session. Fiddle storage is still in the 40-50 car range. At the other extreme (not sure if anyone operates this big), for 1000 X/Xm's entering from staging each session: - 70 roads' boxcars are present every session = 976 cars that appear every session and do not need to be fiddled. 500 of these cars will come from only 11 roads! (kind of boring, and kind of prototypical...) - 31 roads (and at least 31 cars) that appear at least once every 5 sessions. 17 cars from this pool appear each session. This pool still includes roads such as Ann Arbor, Rutland, Clinchfield, DM&IR, SP&S. - A pool of at least 35 cars, from 119 reporting marks, with 7 cars appearing from this pool every op session. Each car should only appear once per five sessions. Notable infrequent roads in this pool for such a huge layout include: Ma&Pa, LS&I, FEC (does not include ventilated boxcars), and Virginian. - For the huge fleet, only 2.4% of the fleet will need to be fiddled each session. This is likely less than one boxcar per train to fiddle. Interesting that this is almost exactly the same number of boxcars fiddled for the 200 boxcar session. Only need around 60-70 cars of storage at the fiddle yard (minimum). It is intersting that while the small layout session requires a lot of fiddling, one can justify in-frequent appearances of a much larger percentage of the cars - it just happens that most of these "infrequent" cars should be for pretty large railroads, unless your operator's memories are short;-) At the other extreme, for large layouts the major roads rule - prototypical but not very interesting. This would add a "look out for the odd car" concept to the op session much like railfanning the prototype that might be enjoyed a little - "Hey, did you spot that SP&S boxcar last session?" Enough rambling.. Dave Evans PS - I promise not to do this again - but I needed a long break from some very tedious work. Sorry...
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Richard Hendrickson
On Feb 4, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
.... even the "G-B Theory" would predict an extremely low Oh, come on, guys, get real. I've fast forwarded through most of this discussion as being a tiresome rehash of the same old arguments about car distribution, but instead of this endless speculation, how about considering some facts, starting with fact #1: the 10/38 ORER shows exactly 75 box cars under MWR reporting marks. Fact #2: The 1940 Car Builders' Cyclopedia shows a total of 738,509 box cars in service on the North American railroads in 1/39. That means that out of 9,847 box cars, one was an MWR car. And y'all think that one car had even the most remote likelihood of turning up on the Yosemite Valley RR? Yes, theoretically its possible; it could have happened, even though the odds against it are astronomical. It's also theoretically possible that the planet Jupiter is made of green cheese (we can't say that any more about the moon or Mars, because we've been there so we have concrete evidence of their composition). Fortunately, Jack Burgess has a stronger grasp of reality than numerous others on this list and is sensible enough not to run a model of a MWR box car on his YV layout and then have to explain and rationalize it to every halfway knowledgeable person who comes in the door and raises an eyebrow when they see it. In addition to accuracy, one objective of prototype modeling is plausibility. If something is implausible, don't do it. Even if you have evidence that it actually happened, it will destroy for your viewers what 19th century poet/critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge aptly called "the willing suspension of disbelief." That suspension of disbelief is what makes it possible to plausibly recreate history in 1:87 (or whatever other) scale. If you're going to do things that are highly implausible because they're interesting or "cute," you might as well go back to running Lionel around the Christmas tree. Richard Hendrickson
|
|
Re: The third hand
peteraue
--- In STMFC@..., "Manfred Lorenz" <germanfred55@...> wrote:
Manfred, My wood block approach only works if the wood has a smooth surface and the thickness of the block matches the inside width of the car very well. Different width cars require different size blocks. For me that is not a problem. I have access to a thickness planer which permits dimensional tolerances of approximately +/- .1mm. I found car sides have extremely small variations in thickness so I see no need for anything adjustable. Peter Aue
|
|
N_G data was Re: Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
SUVCWORR@...
Is the Nelson-Gilbert data in the group files? If so, I could not identify
it or don't know what I am looking for. If not where might it be located? TIA Rich Orr **************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)
|
|
Re: PRR FM40 - Sunshine vs F&C Decals for circa 1942?
On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:45 PM, parkcitybranch wrote:
I need some decals to letter a few PRR FM40 flat cars. I looked atJason, There is no "FM40" class of PRR flat car. Since you refer to both sunshine and F&C, I'm going with class "FM", which was a 40' car (is that what the 40 is?). The Sunshine decals are definitely better quality than the F&C. As listed by Sunshine, the kit is simply PRR Revenue service and few if any of these cars had anything other than their WWII era paint applied. I have not actually looked at these decals lately, having built my Sunshine FMs for MOW service, but you might also consider Champ set HC-97. In all likelihood, to get accurate lettering you will need to mix and match a variety of decals. Regards Bruce Bruce F. Smith Auburn, AL http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2 "Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield." __ / \ __<+--+>________________\__/___ ________________________________ |- ______/ O O \_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ | | / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 \ | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__|| |/_____________________________\|_|________________________________| | O--O \0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0
|
|
Re: The third hand
I just measure, file & sand to get the sides and floor to
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
match. The ends are rarely off much and generally you don't want to sand off their detail anyway. I don't use spacers but I have glued styrene pieces to reinforce butt joints. Tim O'Connor
It was Peter who posted his method of using a wood block. I too find it
|
|
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Jack: You know you could get that Muncie and Western car in thereBut what was inside that car...Mason jars? Sand for making the glass? Jack, of course not. It was being treated as a 40 foot general purpose XM and was simply loaded anywhere it happened to be, for any destination. This fact is well documented, and was the subject of too many complaints and studies and annual reports to recount. It was even the subject of a famous advertising campaign of a Monon box car (I think PS-1 CIL #1) that went off line and didn't return for years... But that said, even the "G-B Theory" would predict an extremely low PROBABILITY of a Muncie & Western box car appearing on the YV in 1939! So it's no surprise that you can't find one in such a small sample. If you had a sample of several thousand cars, I'd be very surprised if there was no M&W box car. Tim O'Connor
|
|
PRR FM40 - Sunshine vs F&C Decals for circa 1942?
parkcitybranch <parkcitybranch@...>
I need some decals to letter a few PRR FM40 flat cars. I looked at
the decals available from Sunshine and they are described as "late steam era". What exactly does that mean? I want to model the cars circa 1942, will the Sunshine decals let me do that or should I use the F&C decals? I am concerned about some of the F&C decals because of the comments in the archives but I am not sure if those comments apply to the PRR FM40 decals. Thanks. Jason Sanford
|
|