No argument with that Jack. A video of a clinic is not the same
as the clinic itself. And a printable/publishable document is an
entirely different animal.

But there are some excellent "clinics" on Youtube. Here's one that
really illustrates the power of the medium:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SXhF_NMW-w

Tim O'Connor

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

Tony wrote this post as I was replying but I will address his last point.
I've presented a lot of clinics over the years and, many times, elements of
those clinics later become the basis of magazine articles. I thus want to
keep my material under my control. As such, while I will allow taping of my
clinics if there are no prototype photos, I won't provide copies of my
PowerPoint presentations when asked although I do provide handouts. Just my
nature...
Jack Burgess

Tony

That's true -- I was most thinking of "how to" clinics, not slide show
clinics. While the slide shows and roster clinics are great fun, I don't
know that they would make for compelling Youtubery... :-)

But editing an MPEG is now quite easy with free or inexpensive software
tools, so a copyrighted image could easily be "blanked". Youtube expects
its users to comply with copyrights.

Tim O'Connor

JP, consider:

Tony Thompson wrote "G-N"
Bruce Smith wrote "N-G"

And yet each of them was referring to the Gilbert-Nelson, or Nelson-Gilbert
model of freight car distribution. Come to think of it, some of us actually
use those names instead of shorthand.

Anyway, I just thought I'd point out that little epistemological conundrum.
This is the kind of thing that makes using simple text-based search engines
so difficult. PG-Offline supports more complex logical search expressions,
but ultimately we are totally dependent on the literal text, not the meaning,
of our emails.

So perhaps the value of repetition arises because we misspell all the time,
or use alternative phrases. Eventually there is an archive that contains so
much redundant information that almost ANY search string will yield some
edible fruits.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. Because I use Eudora, I can easily and quickly edit any incoming email.
I will often make editorial notations in the email, which get added to the
search index so useful emails can be recalled much later. This is a trick
that has long existed in web pages, where the page source is loaded with
"key words" that get logged into search engines like Google, but are not
visible to the normal users of the page. Of course "key word abuse" is now
a major problem since advertising is tied to web searches... but I digress.

On May 17, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

Gene Green wrote

Would the size of the model railroad be the greatest factor in
determining what should be in the car fleet?

Not necessarily. Jack Parker, and I think, Richard Hendrickson, built
what amounts to mainline dioramas as layouts -- Not operations per se,
but a platform for running trains through a scene.

I tried to come up with a prototype SP location for a shelf layout and
I've decided on Colton Tower, where the SP and ATSF/UP cross. Just
east
of there was SP's yard. So I will model the tower and yard approaches,
a depot and a couple of yard tracks and the mainline. That's it. Best
of all, it allows me to model any SP freight or passenger train
seen at
that location!

And, one assumes, the numerous Santa Fe and UP trains that crossed
that diamond, as well. You aren't going to pretend they don't exist,
are you, Tim?

Richard Hendrickson

On May 17, 2011, at 3:36 PM, Anthony Thompson wrote:

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Ya know... almost any smart phone can now take HD video & audio good
enough to post to Youtube. It would be great if the NMRA or just
anyone would simply "tape" each clinic and post it to Youtube.

Fair comment, Tim, and one which comes up often. But it ignores
the fact that many clinics contain material such as photographs, for
which the user has a "fair use" right for a presentation but NOT,
repeat NOT, for what is effectively publication on the web, such as
YouTube. And there are those clinicians who prefer NOT to have their
material "out of their control," as one person put it. I don't
personally hold with the latter viewpoint, I'm just reporting it.

I will add to this that it has recently come to my attention that a
model RR club has published on its website, intact, the handout for a
clinic I did several years ago. No problem there; I gave the clinic
for the purpose of disseminating information. However, on the club
website there is NO credit given, no acknowledgment of the source, no
mention of my name. It's as though the handout text was originated
by some nameless club member, or perhaps it sprang forth from the
right hand of God and is therefore automatically in the public
domain. And that's not okay. The electronic media provide entirely
too generous an opportunity for rip-offs of this sort.

Richard Hendrickson

Tony wrote this post as I was replying but I will address his last point.
I've presented a lot of clinics over the years and, many times, elements of
those clinics later become the basis of magazine articles. I thus want to
keep my material under my control. As such, while I will allow taping of my
clinics if there are no prototype photos, I won't provide copies of my
PowerPoint presentations when asked although I do provide handouts. Just my
nature...

Jack Burgess

<
<Tim O'Connor wrote:
<> Ya know... almost any smart phone can now take HD video & audio good
<> enough to post to Youtube. It would be great if the NMRA or just
<> anyone would simply "tape" each clinic and post it to Youtube.
<
< Fair comment, Tim, and one which comes up often. But it ignores
<the fact that many clinics contain material such as photographs, for
<which the user has a "fair use" right for a presentation but NOT,
<repeat NOT, for what is effectively publication on the web, such as
<YouTube. And there are those clinicians who prefer NOT to have their
<material "out of their control," as one person put it. I don't
<personally hold with the latter viewpoint, I'm just reporting it.
<
<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@signaturepress.com
<Publishers of books on railroad history
<
<
<
<------------------------------------
<
<Yahoo! Groups Links
<
<
<

Gene Green wrote

>> Would the size of the model railroad be the greatest factor in
>> determining what should be in the car fleet?

Not necessarily. Jack Parker, and I think, Richard Hendrickson, built
what amounts to mainline dioramas as layouts -- Not operations per se,
but a platform for running trains through a scene.

I tried to come up with a prototype SP location for a shelf layout and
I've decided on Colton Tower, where the SP and ATSF/UP cross. Just east
of there was SP's yard. So I will model the tower and yard approaches,
a depot and a couple of yard tracks and the mainline. That's it. Best
of all, it allows me to model any SP freight or passenger train seen at
that location!

Tim O'Connor

<Ya know... almost any smart phone can now take HD video & audio good
<enough to post to Youtube. It would be great if the NMRA or just anyone
<would simply "tape" each clinic and post it to Youtube. I'd LOVE to be
<able to travel to Sacramento and attend the meet, but I can't. I'd be
<happy to make a small donation to a fund that supported such an effort.
<
<Same comment applies to RPM meets like Naperville, Cocoa Beach, etc. We
<(as a whole) are slow to adopt these wonderful web-based sharing
<services.
<
<Tim O'Connor

We'd very much like to do that and talked about it a couple of years ago as
part of our "Unconventional Convention" approach to this Convention. In
fact, our Facebook guru suggested ways for those unable to attend to
"attend" live via the Internet during the actual convention.

However, there are two problems. The first (which is more solvable) is that
many clinics include prototype photos and, while their use for a clinic is
acceptable, there might be legal problems in posting them on the Internet
via YouTube or a website-posted PowerPoint presentation.

But the real problem is that the Convention is being held at the Sacramento
Convention Center and the contract with the facility prevents any
videotaping during the Convention except through the use of a private,
exclusive contractor which, as you know, you going to be very expensive. The
requirement is obviously aimed at professional organizations (lawyers,
doctors, etc.) where the contractor can then sell the presentations on DVD
to others at an exorbitant rate. Apparently, this restriction is common with
Convention Centers and the NMRA is now aware of the problems such
restrictions pose to us and will be checking carefully in the future to
hopefully avoid such restrictions/problems.

Jack Burgess

Tim O'Connor wrote:

Ya know... almost any smart phone can now take HD video & audio good enough to post to Youtube. It would be great if the NMRA or just anyone would simply "tape" each clinic and post it to Youtube.

Fair comment, Tim, and one which comes up often. But it ignores the fact that many clinics contain material such as photographs, for which the user has a "fair use" right for a presentation but NOT, repeat NOT, for what is effectively publication on the web, such as YouTube. And there are those clinicians who prefer NOT to have their material "out of their control," as one person put it. I don't personally hold with the latter viewpoint, I'm just reporting it.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

The part of the NYC I grew up watching was almost exclusively coal and
chemicals. The coal was almost 100% NYC hoppers. We also saw all sorts of
tank cars and various box cars, I never saw a reefer... Mike Fleming


And Mike, from that description, I guess you grew up around Charleston, WV.
Isn't that amazing? Sometimes traffic patterns are so specific to a location
that all you have to do is describe them, and a perfect stranger might be
able to guess where you come from.

Tim O'Connor

P.S. I only thought of this because on my visit to Charleston in 1994, all
I saw on the ex-NYC Conrail line was tank cars, and coal hoppers.

Ya know... almost any smart phone can now take HD video & audio good
enough to post to Youtube. It would be great if the NMRA or just anyone
would simply "tape" each clinic and post it to Youtube. I'd LOVE to be
able to travel to Sacramento and attend the meet, but I can't. I'd be
happy to make a small donation to a fund that supported such an effort.

Same comment applies to RPM meets like Naperville, Cocoa Beach, etc. We
(as a whole) are slow to adopt these wonderful web-based sharing services.

Tim O'Connor

Gene Green wrote:

Wouldn't the origin and destination of the shipments from the industries modeled and those virtual industries represented by staging have a greater influence on which RRs cars were represented than some formula based on the national or regional car fleet?
I am envious of all who would engage in this exercise because you must have really large model railroads if you need or want to represent the national or a regional car fleet.

Bruce Smith has provided a cogent answer on the separation of car types vs. railroad ownership of the cars. As to the "large layout" comment, I think you are missing the point, Gene. Let's say you have a layout on which there will only be five box cars. One or two might be home-road cars. What about the rest? Gilbert-Nelson tells us that the most LIKELY candidates are from the LARGEST railroad fleets. If you had a NYC and a PRR box car, and chose the fifth car from another "top 10" or "top 20" list of railroad box car fleets, you would be following the ideas we are suggesting.
Not many people are trying to accurately model the proportions of fleets of foreign box cars beyond the "top 20," but note that the mere existence of a "top 20" list already tells us a great deal about preferences we might wish to exercise.
I should note, in part because of Armand Premo's well-founded concerns, that smaller railroads, relatively isolated railroads, and branch lines probably won't obey G-N. If you have conductor's wheel reports or comparable documents, then you can choose the three foreign box cars for your layout from ACTUAL data on what ran in the area you're modeling.
Naturally one can ignore all this and buy those three foreign box cars for whatever roads you like. But as Tony Koester says, you're then in danger of choosing the hobby of "playing with model trains" instead of "model railroading," which he defines as the effort to model real railroad equipment, places, eras, and operations.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

Ummm... Mike, as I said, and your list shows: Not a single postwar
UP box car except for the Kadee PS-1 (B-50-52, which was not on your
list). Considering that there are a number of postwar box car models
for SP, CB&Q, AT&SF, MILW, C&NW, WP, MKT, MP, GN, NP -- I think it
is very fair and accurate to say that the UP is under-represnted.

I once talked about this with Martin, and he said he had masters for
a UP box car, but wasn't sure they would sell well. This was about 15
years ago, and he didn't say what box car he meant.

However, I've since thought of one postwar (up to 1960) UP box car --
the B-50-45/BI-50-1 class, which can be modeled by some modifications
to the Branchline 50' insulated box car -- including Archer rivets.

Tim O'Connor

JP Barger wrote:

A more positive exercise would be for some of our more experienced members, especially our computer gurus, to offer some kind of training in helping new members sort more quickly through the initial difficulties of reaching our own data sites.

Good points. One solution is a FAQ file, to which newbies can be directed (like the introductory textbook). But it's a lot of work to create a FAQ and no one (so far) has addressed even starting such a task.
We do often suggest to newbies that our list archive is a VERY rich resource, and that they will often find answers to their questions already there; but in fact the most comment result of such a suggestion is that the questioner comes back and says, "Gee, I couldn't find anything," (or equivalent), whereupon someone with both the requisite skills and energy, for example Ben Hom, answers by saying "Just look at message 123456." It's not an efficient process but sometimes it works.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history

On May 17, 2011, at 4:22 PM, Gene wrote:

Would the size of the model railroad be the greatest factor in
determining what should be in the car fleet?

Small layout = few industries = few car types = few cars = few RRs
represented.

Wouldn't the industries on a layout determine the types of cars
needed?

Gene,

These two questions relate to car type, not road and frankly it
depends on the specific industry what the variety of car types would
be. Additionally, the industries determine car type only if there is
no through traffic (which is entirely possible).

As we have said here ad naseum, car type does make an impact on the
origins of the "fleet" with hoppers being local/regional, gons being
more regional, and boxes and flats being national. Focusing on these
two types, the issue of the number of RR represented isn't so much an
issue of layout size as the number of cars the layout owner wants to
buy/build. Hypothetically, if you have 10 foreign boxcars, then if a
RR had 1% of the national fleet, you would be unlikely to want a car
from that road. However, if you have 100 foreign boxcars, then, in
planning your fleet, it makes sense to have 1 car from that road. It
is basic simple statistics.

Wouldn't the origin and destination of the shipments from the
industries modeled and those virtual industries represented by
staging have a greater influence on which RRs cars were represented
than some formula based on the national or regional car fleet?

Please be clear on car type. The national distribution hypothesis is
about boxcars and flats ONLY. For them, the answer is NO (with the
exception of cars in assigned service), and we've been over the
reasons many many times. For other types of cars, yes, the industry
represented can have an impact on RR..

I am envious of all who would engage in this exercise because you
must have really large model railroads if you need or want to
represent the national or a regional car fleet.

No, that's not how it works at all... as noted above.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
https://www5.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0

Would the size of the model railroad be the greatest factor in determining what should be in the car fleet?

Small layout = few industries = few car types = few cars = few RRs represented.

Wouldn't the industries on a layout determine the types of cars needed?

Wouldn't the origin and destination of the shipments from the industries modeled and those virtual industries represented by staging have a greater influence on which RRs cars were represented than some formula based on the national or regional car fleet?

I am envious of all who would engage in this exercise because you must have really large model railroads if you need or want to represent the national or a regional car fleet.

Gene Green

Hello Group,

I see that the photos have been approved and are available for reviewing.

Any assistance and suggestions on modeling this tank car will be greatly appreciated.

Happy Modeling,
Bill Keene
Irvine, CA

My fellow searchers:



A reader of the STMFC Group's members' submissions to its computerized
public forum could reach the point of member annoyance with repetition. Some
of this sentiment seems to be present in recent entries, unless I have lost
more of my long term inability to make complete sense of others' writings.
This scenario reminds me of teaching school at any level, elementary, high
school, college or even graduate school. It's always a challenge for
teachers to discover or invent new material or data. Sometimes, there is
sufficient progress in the subject discipline to keep courses exciting and
stimulating. Take nuclear physics, for example, where we seem to come up
with a new fundamental particle a year. No boredom there, if teachers are
trying to keep up with the rapid pace of the subject. Or biotechnology,
where it seems half of the world is working on advancing the understanding
of bioprocesses, and their effects on human health and longevity. No
sleeping on the job there, either.



But here we are, belonging to a group devoted entirely to freight car
information over fifty years of the recent past. The job here is to uncover
and absorb the relevant facts of the period as they pertain to freight car
prototypes and models, and to make some generalized sense of those facts. To
make teachable material
out of all the millions of data points requires a sense of organization, a
talent not always shared equally by all folks. I have seen already in my
short membership in this group some marvelous and very effective
condensations of multitudinous data, simplified ways to view a complicated
world of otherwise confusing information, so that data reaches the point of
teachability. For example: the bar charts and line graphs which several
members have contributed represent large advances in the organization of
data.



A point to be reckoned with: almost all of the information we need to deal
with in this group is already fixed in place. It's somewhat like a modern
version of archaeology; the available data is there someplace, waiting to be
mined. Example: The shake & take group is building models this year of
NADX/Hormel reefers. How many of these models could be improved if only more
pictures or drawings of the subject cars were currently extant! The needed
pictures are quite probably out there somewhere. The normal schedule of
events would bring the modelers a treasure trove of NADX/Hormel pictures
exactly one day after the close of Mike's meeting next January, just
following the first presentation of finished models. Reality or sarcasm? You
know the answer.



So, buckle your belts, people, and get ready for more repetition. Just as in
a teacher's career where inexorable new annual waves of successive students
march in to

schools, the subjects taught have to be taught again and again. It's hard
for teachers to escape boredom. How do we escape the fact of requiring new
members, each of whom will have to be brought up to speed in the subject,
and who will ask the same questions which were presented and discussed
perhaps in recent months or years?

It will take more patience on our part to deal with the same questions,
asked repetitively. Not allowing new members, to escape the repetition of
questions, is one answer if we would like to go out of business quickly.
Keeping up the rate of discovery of new data, organizing that data, and
putting it in teachable or transferable form is possibly the only practical
answer, all the while preserving and enhancing patience with new members
(and those of us who have reached the age of forgetting a lot) We also need
to be mindful that the undesirable traits of impatience, short temper and
demonstrated boredom will only turn off the very same new members that any
organization needs to maintain itself over a multigenerational span of
years, its lifeblood of future years.



A more positive exercise would be for some of our more experienced members,
especially our computer gurus, to offer some kind of training in helping new
members sort more quickly through the initial difficulties of reaching our
own data sites.



JP Barger

There has been some discussion indicating that UP has been under represented in the list of produced model. I suppose that the only way to tell would be to compare the UP list with that of other RR's but I'll leave that to others.

UP cars

1. A-50-17 Auto P2K. OK, lets get done with the Alternate Center Rivets now. I don't disqualify a car because it doesn't have them because now I can add them with Archer Rivets.

2. A-50-16 40 ft Auto. Trix. Produced as an A-50-19 but changing the number makes it the more accurate A-50-16.

3. CH-70-1 Covered Hopper E&B Valley, Bowser

4. CH-70-2 Covered Hopper Int, Kato

5. S-40-6 Stock UPHS

6. S-40-10 Stock Prototype Rails Shake N Take [ Accurail ]

7. S-40-12 Stock Trix

8. F-50-11 Flat P2k

9. H-70-1 Hopper Trix [ see my article in Culotta's Prototype Railroad Modeling Vol one ]

10.HK-70-1 Hopper Atlas [ see my article in Culotta's Prototype Railroad Modeling Vol one ]

11. G-50-11 GS Gon Red Caboose

12. G-50-13 GS gon Red Caboose. Detail Associates

13. B-50-20 Box Westerfield

14. B-50-19 Box Red Caboose

15. B-50-25 Express Box Overland Brass

16. B-50-24 Box Trix

17. B-50-27 Box Trix

18. B-50-33 Box Int

19. B-50-39 Box BRL

20. B-50-40 Box PS-1 C&BT?

21. A -50-4 Auto Westerfield

22. HK-50-4 hopper Overland brass

This list does not include some resin cars offered by Sunshine. Please indicate any errors and additions.

22 cars? Most classes are represented. The missing tank car can be bashed fairly easily from the Athearn car. I would not say that UP was under represented...yet.

Mike Brock

Marty, the first photo (pg 1) of the document you linked sure looks like
someone's nicely detailed, but unweathered, model, until you enlarge the
image.



And ceiling tiles? (see caption pg 2) Inside a boxcar? Obviously the author
of the article knew nothing about boxcars.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org