Date   

Re: Classic Freight Cars, Vol III- Refrigerator Cars

Nolan Hinshaw
 

On Sep 3, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Allan Smith smithal9@sbcglobal.net [STMFC] wrote:

Classic Freight Cars VIII by John Henderson printed by GRIT Commercial Printing Co PO Box 965 Williamsport PA 17703-0965.
I haven"t seen one in the shops for some time. Maybe try Ebay.
Bookfinder.com lists several copies from an assortment of vendors starting at a bit less than $60.
--
Nolan Hinshaw
San Francisco
"Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!"
From Wolfgang Pauli, perpetrator of the Pauli Exclusion Principle


Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)

Tony Thompson
 

Insurance companies don't like a lot of boxes lying around. They become fire hazards. I do not keep empty boxes, the risk is to great


    They probably don't like paint and solvents around, either; better get rid of them all. And books and magazines are flammable, so they really better go too. In fact, clothing and bedding burns pretty well, so you will want to remove most or all of those items too. Eventually you might be fire-safe.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)

dale florence <dwwesley@...>
 

Insurance companies don't like a lot of boxes lying around. They become fire hazards. I do not keep empty boxes, the risk is to great

Dale Florence


From: Pierre Oliver pierre.oliver@... [STMFC] ;
To: ;
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 2:28:27 PM



Armand, you're not alone.
I too save kit boxes, as do a couple of my clients.
For me it was a good thing, when we decided to move last winter, packing the rolling stock was made far easier by having all the boxes.
And when the time comes for my collection to be sold it'll be a little easier with all those boxes.
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 9/04/15 10:20 AM, 'Armand' armprem2@... [STMFC] wrote:

 



I save all the boxes.I keep the cars not being used  in boxes on book shelves.In each box I have a car card with information such as  source,cost, purchase date,matching paint,weight, trucks ,couplers,repairs,last date on layout and value.And they are safe and do not collect dust.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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:
 
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

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4830 / Virus Database: 4365/10574 - Release Date: 09/04/15





First prototype USRA single sheathed box car

jayrs9
 

I have been working on trying to document the designs of the USRA freight cars in 3d (www.TrainsIn3d.com).  My initial attempt is the USRA single sheathed box car.  The first prototype of this car, number " U.S. 0000" was built in October 1918 by Haskell & Barker Car Company under Lot 5179. Ultimately they went on to make 6,000 of these cars. I have two good builders' photos from the Railway Prototype Cyclopedia #17 of these cars, but not surprising they are black & white.  I am trying to determine how they were painted as they left the shop.  The lettering on the cars is clearly white and rest of the car body seems to be a single color.  Does anyone know what color that might be, I would presume it some sort of "standard" USRA color

Thanks for any assistance,
Jay



Re: Alcohol Shipments, was Pacific Northwest WWII was Lumber Traffic

Bill Decker
 

Larry,

Now I understand why the US Government was interested in a wood alcohol plant.  Plywood would have been an important commodity for the WWII effort and beyond.

As to Jon Miller's question on where the wood alcohol plant was in Springfield, it looks like the plant was out along the Marcola Branch of NE Springfield--headed toward Weyerhauser.  There is and was a fair bit of industry spread along that branch.  

My alternate history will have this plant staying in service (rail-served, of course!) throughout the period of this list.  So now I need appropriate tank cars!  ;-))

Bill Decker
Southern Pacific Cascade Line

 




Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)

Pierre Oliver
 

Armand, you're not alone.
I too save kit boxes, as do a couple of my clients.
For me it was a good thing, when we decided to move last winter, packing the rolling stock was made far easier by having all the boxes.
And when the time comes for my collection to be sold it'll be a little easier with all those boxes.
Pierre Oliver
www.elgincarshops.com
www.yarmouthmodelworks.com
On 9/04/15 10:20 AM, 'Armand' armprem2@... [STMFC] wrote:

 



I save all the boxes.I keep the cars not being used  in boxes on book shelves.In each box I have a car card with information such as  source,cost, purchase date,matching paint,weight, trucks ,couplers,repairs,last date on layout and value.And they are safe and do not collect dust.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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:
 
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

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4830 / Virus Database: 4365/10574 - Release Date: 09/04/15



Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)

Armand Premo
 


I save all the boxes.I keep the cars not being used  in boxes on book shelves.In each box I have a car card with information such as  source,cost, purchase date,matching paint,weight, trucks ,couplers,repairs,last date on layout and value.And they are safe and do not collect dust.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] 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:
 

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


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2014.0.4830 / Virus Database: 4365/10574 - Release Date: 09/04/15


MONON box cars

Thomas Baker
 

Group,


I have seen a photo of a MONON 50-foot double-door box car.  From looking at the photo, I would say the doors are seven foot each, leaving an opening of fourteen feet for loading.  The number on the car is 1271.  Would cars in this series have a diagonal panel roof or a rectangular panel roof?


Tom Baker


Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)

Brian Carlson
 

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@...>
 

I can not believe this is being discussed any further


From: Charles Peck lnnrr152@... [STMFC] ;
To: ;
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Funaro & Camerlengo kit box chronology(?)
Sent: Fri, Sep 4, 2015 1:52:03 PM

 

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:
 

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(?)

Charles Peck
 

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:
 

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(?)

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,

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:
 

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 . I have waited to see if it showed up, but have not seen it.




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@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 8:13 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic

 

 

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@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 9:25 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic

 

 

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

 

 

The following columns are provided:

> Year
> Originating and terminating on the L&N - revenue tons
> Originating on the L&N, delivered to connecting carriers - revenue tons

> Received from connecting carriers, terminated on L&N - revenue tons
> Received from connecting carriers, delivered to connecting carriers - revenue tons
> Freight revenue (Dollars)

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

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
> Originating and terminating on the L&N - revenue tons
> Originating on the L&N, delivered to connecting carriers - revenue tons

> Received from connecting carriers, terminated on L&N - revenue tons
> Received from connecting carriers, delivered to connecting carriers - revenue tons
> Freight revenue (Dollars)

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@...]
Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2015 8:13 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Pacific Northwest Lumber Traffic

 

 

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

 

 

47981 - 48000 of 185041