Date   
Re: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Bruce Smith writes:

"I think Tim may have overstated the divergence of the 1949 data from
the theory <G>. The difference in 1949 are those annoying extra SP
cars... with the exception of those, the national fleet model is
still pretty accurate, correct?"

Not really. There is a similar problem with Milw, CB&Q and C&NW cars.

"If you did not have any knowledge of the 1949 wheel reports, how
would you set up your fleet?"

Hmmm. Good question. The trouble is, I have the Big Boy Collection video which shows 4 complete UP trains. One has those 36 SP box cars...

"I have looked high and low for wheel reports, or for that matter even
tower sheets from my chosen period of June 1944 for Columbia PA. I
have found nothing. Nada. Photos are rare due to wartime concerns.
Films do exist, but mostly on other parts of the PRR (they tend to
confirm the Gilbert fleet model and the Brock NP model). So, what
should my starting point be?"

As I see it, there are two major competing models being espoused (for
boxcars)

1) The loco-regional interchange model. This model says that by
virtue of proximity, connecting road percentages will be higher than
roads that are further away. FWIW, that does not mean that if
distant road X has 10% of the national fleet and close road Y has 2%
that there should be more Y cars than X cars, but only that the % of
Y should be above 2% and by default, the % of X must be below 10%.
No data sets have been offered to support this model."

The model that I prefer is a modified Nelson/Gilbert model which states that RRs with "significant interchange" should have from 2 to 2.5 times the national %. The 1949 Fraley supports this scenario. "Significant interchange" would be one in which one RR terminates and a very high % of its traffic continues on another. Examples are UP/SP at Ogden, UT, UP/Milw and UP/CB&Q and UP/C&NW at Council Bluffs/Omaha. Add GN/CB&Q and NP/CB&Q in Minneapolis/St. Paul and SP/RI and SP/SSW. I would not include UP/Mopac at Omaha or the other Omaha RRs. There might be others as well. I would not include RRs that simply connect as in the case of Southern and SP and Mopac at New Orleans, PRR and Mopac at St. Louis, SR and B&O at St. Louis, SR with N&W at Cicinnati. FEC and SR, SAL and RF&P would need study.

"2) The national fleet model. This model says that because boxcars
were freely interchanged that the % of a given car seen on any given
railroad over time should approximate the % of the car in the
national fleet. Model 2 is supported by several small data sets.

Additionally, there are data sets such as the 1949 Fraley and the
Potomac yard set that do not appear to match EITHER model exactly.
In both these cases, one to several roads appear to be "out of
kilter" compared to the rest.

Railroad historians can argue the whys forever, but I have a layout
to populate, so, what does this mean to us as modelers?

For you (Mike), is 1953 like either 1949 or 1947 or is it different
still? Does the fact that there's a war on make a difference? Do we
just throw up our hands and say it is unknowable, there is no perfect
model and I'll just put anything I damn well care to on my layout?
(we'll call that model 3 <G>)"

No. Like I say, I prefer a modified Nelson/Gilbert...at this time.

"I've always held that the national
fleet model is a STARTING place and that arriving at a realistic
fleet is an iterative process. It's not that the model is wrong and
useless, it is that 1949 on this line is a case where the model needs
to be adjusted."

My point.

"Both 1947 and 1949 follow the national fleet numbers
for most of the fleet, so why not start there and then perhaps
increase the SP numbers slightly, maybe 50% over expected numbers?
To model this line using the loco-regional model might result in the
correct % of SP cars, and the incorrect % of just about every other
road. I don't view that as a logical solution ;^)"

Neither do I. There are a lot of RRs that went into Omaha. I would choose to raise the number of cars of only 3...Milw, C&NW and CB&Q.

"My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict with
100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any
other data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the
steam era (based on the data sets). If someone is lucky enough to
develop additional data sources, then those can be used to modify the
national fleet model to represent some of those local deviations.
Situations that might be included would be some that have been named,
such as grain rush season and areas dense with automobile
manufacturers (and hence assigned service cars)."

We agree. Unfortunately, I'm beginning to analyze a Fraley 1956 book. It will probably show Maine Central cars in great numbers. <G>. It DOES include one very surprising train. Only UP could...

Mike Brock

Re: Freight car distribution UP > Wabash

Allen Rueter
 

Jeff,
The only notes I have say MP & UP connections were made with Wabash 82, 98 and 90, with up to three connections a day for 90, due to perishable traffic. It took about 75 minutes to get to UP Yard over the CBQ and KCT tracks, 4.8 miles from NKC Yard.

--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO

----- Original Message ----
From: "Aley, Jeff A" <Jeff.A.Aley@...>
To: "STMFC@..." <STMFC@...>
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:04:13 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution UP > Wabash


Allen,

Great data! Do you know if the UP -> Wabash traffic in KC was primarily PFE reefers? Or was it a lot of general merchandise?

Also, is it correct to assume that the Wabash received cars someplace near their freight house in the KC West Bottoms?

Thanks much,

-Jeff

____________ _________ _________ __
From: STMFC@yahoogroups. com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of Allen Rueter
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 6:27 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution UP > Wabash

A data point, the Wabash didn't get much from the UP in Council Bluffs (4100+ cars in '47),
but they did get 38500+ in KC.

--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO

ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

lnnrr <lnnrr@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "wmcclark1980" <walterclark@...> wrote:

Bruce, I've decided to use model #4, which is I'll select from the
universe of box cars built before my modeling date of November 1941,
and painted box car red (running for shelter).

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA
Walter, hom many of those red boxcars will have bananas in them?
Green or Ripe?
Chuckles (Charles Peck)

Re: Freight car distribution

Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
 

I personally use model #1 for US boxcars running grain on my 1956
Eastern Ontario model railway. But "model 3a" is a plausible one as
well--

3a. Accurate STMFC distribution is unknowable with current info, and
requires further research. We allow that models 1 and 2 are both
plausible.

Postings to STMFC have revealed some VERY-strongly-held opinions on
the subject.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Bruce Smith wrote:
As I see it, there are two major competing models being espoused
(for
boxcars)
1) The loco-regional interchange model. . .
2) The national fleet model. . .r
3) . . . it is unknowable, there is no perfect model and I'll
just put
anything I damn well care to on my layout (we'll call that model
3
<G>)
My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict
with
100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any
other
data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the steam
era
(based on the data sets).
Well and intelligently summarized, Bruce, but I bet the nay-
sayers
will not be convinced by this or fifty more messages. They don't
even
like model (3) though that's essentially their position.

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: Lake Terminal 3000 series hopper cars - question

jim_mischke <jmischke@...>
 

Based on Ed's insight, I've looked in the Magor freight car book and
found the line item in the all-time Magor roster for Lake Terminal
3000-3149, delivered 1/52. No other mention in that book.

Where might I go for more information? Like a drawing. Builder
memos. Resource people. Library archives. Responses on and off list
are fine.

My main interest is that B&O picked up a number of these through a
broker in 1962, numbered in the 23000 series. I'd like to flesh out
the fact base on this car beyond the first tanatalizing Richard Burg -
Paul Dunn photograph.

--- In STMFC@..., Ed Hawkins <hawk0621@...> wrote:


On Aug 2, 2008, at 6:20 PM, jim_mischke wrote:

Question to the group: Does anyone know anything about these Lake
Terminal 3000 series hopper cars? Builder??
Jim,
Lake Terminal 3000-3149 was built by Magor Car Corp. in 1951.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Freight car distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
As I see it, there are two major competing models being espoused (for
boxcars)
1) The loco-regional interchange model. . .
2) The national fleet model. . .r
3) . . . it is unknowable, there is no perfect model and I'll just put anything I damn well care to on my layout (we'll call that model 3 <G>)
My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict with 100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any other data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the steam era (based on the data sets).
Well and intelligently summarized, Bruce, but I bet the nay-sayers will not be convinced by this or fifty more messages. They don't even like model (3) though that's essentially their position.

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

ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Walter M. Clark
 

Bruce, I've decided to use model #4, which is I'll select from the
universe of box cars built before my modeling date of November 1941,
and painted box car red (running for shelter).

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA

--- In STMFC@..., Bruce Smith <smithbf@...> wrote:

On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Mike Brock wrote:
Well, I don't have the data from the Southern train but I do have
Tim's
results from his 1947 UP data and, of course, I have the 1949 UP
data...which I copied to Tim and he analyzed. The theory worked
fairly well
with the 1947 data...777 box cars...but the 1949 data...almost
twice the
size...1325 box cars...in Tim's words "blew it all to hell".

If, however, we had the data from
3 RRs to work from and the data from the largest did NOT support
the theory,
I would try to alter the theory to match the data or accept the
theory at
great risk. Unfortunately, this is the case when one applies the
theory to
the 1949 UP data. IMO. If what I am saying is incorrect, please let
me know.
Mike,

I think Tim may have overstated the divergence of the 1949 data from
the theory <G>. The difference in 1949 are those annoying extra SP
cars... with the exception of those, the national fleet model is
still pretty accurate, correct?

If you did not have any knowledge of the 1949 wheel reports, how
would you set up your fleet?

I have looked high and low for wheel reports, or for that matter even
tower sheets from my chosen period of June 1944 for Columbia PA. I
have found nothing. Nada. Photos are rare due to wartime concerns.
Films do exist, but mostly on other parts of the PRR (they tend to
confirm the Gilbert fleet model and the Brock NP model). So, what
should my starting point be?

As I see it, there are two major competing models being espoused (for
boxcars)

1) The loco-regional interchange model. This model says that by
virtue of proximity, connecting road percentages will be higher than
roads that are further away. FWIW, that does not mean that if
distant road X has 10% of the national fleet and close road Y has 2%
that there should be more Y cars than X cars, but only that the % of
Y should be above 2% and by default, the % of X must be below 10%.
No data sets have been offered to support this model.

2) The national fleet model. This model says that because boxcars
were freely interchanged that the % of a given car seen on any given
railroad over time should approximate the % of the car in the
national fleet. Model 2 is supported by several small data sets.

Additionally, there are data sets such as the 1949 Fraley and the
Potomac yard set that do not appear to match EITHER model exactly.
In both these cases, one to several roads appear to be "out of
kilter" compared to the rest.

Railroad historians can argue the whys forever, but I have a layout
to populate, so, what does this mean to us as modelers?

For you (Mike), is 1953 like either 1949 or 1947 or is it different
still? Does the fact that there's a war on make a difference? Do we
just throw up our hands and say it is unknowable, there is no perfect
model and I'll just put anything I damn well care to on my layout?
(we'll call that model 3 <G>) I've always held that the national
fleet model is a STARTING place and that arriving at a realistic
fleet is an iterative process. It's not that the model is wrong and
useless, it is that 1949 on this line is a case where the model needs
to be adjusted. Both 1947 and 1949 follow the national fleet numbers
for most of the fleet, so why not start there and then perhaps
increase the SP numbers slightly, maybe 50% over expected numbers?
To model this line using the loco-regional model might result in the
correct % of SP cars, and the incorrect % of just about every other
road. I don't view that as a logical solution ;^)

My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict with
100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any
other data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the
steam era (based on the data sets). If someone is lucky enough to
develop additional data sources, then those can be used to modify the
national fleet model to represent some of those local deviations.
Situations that might be included would be some that have been named,
such as grain rush season and areas dense with automobile
manufacturers (and hence assigned service cars).


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."
__
/ &#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

Re: Freight car distribution

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Walter M. Clark wrote:
But Malcolm, the population of people and opinions, or even birthdays, is skewed and lumpy, and statistical methods work for those. Why not box cars? The result of Tim's and Dave's analysis, fed into Larry's spreadsheet, matches the available data. That's good enough for me.
You're wasting your time, Walter. Malcolm has decided to oppose the idea, no matter what he's told. For his sake, and for the others in his camp, I've stopped trying to explain further.

Tony Thompson
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937;
e-mail: thompsonmarytony@...

Re: Freight car distribution

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...> wrote:

Posted by: "wmcclark1980" What we have is the problem that always
occurs when using statistics.
Most people won't accept that a relatively small sample size can
forecast much larger populations with extreme accuracy.
===========

That's not what the discussion is about Walter. For that theory
to work you need a population that is homogenous with respect to some
variable. With railrad box cars, we are working with lumpy
distributions with varying degrees of skewness and nothing near a
normal or poisson or other kind of distributionfor which we know how
to calculate statistical significance.


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478

But Malcolm, the population of people and opinions, or even
birthdays, is skewed and lumpy, and statistical methods work for
those. Why not box cars? The result of Tim's and Dave's analysis,
fed into Larry's spreadsheet, matches the available data. That's good
enough for me.

Time stopped in November 1941
Walter M. Clark
Pullman, Washington, USA

Re: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Bruce Smith
 

On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:55 AM, Mike Brock wrote:
Well, I don't have the data from the Southern train but I do have Tim's
results from his 1947 UP data and, of course, I have the 1949 UP
data...which I copied to Tim and he analyzed. The theory worked fairly well
with the 1947 data...777 box cars...but the 1949 data...almost twice the
size...1325 box cars...in Tim's words "blew it all to hell".

If, however, we had the data from
3 RRs to work from and the data from the largest did NOT support the theory,
I would try to alter the theory to match the data or accept the theory at
great risk. Unfortunately, this is the case when one applies the theory to
the 1949 UP data. IMO. If what I am saying is incorrect, please let me know.
Mike,

I think Tim may have overstated the divergence of the 1949 data from the theory <G>. The difference in 1949 are those annoying extra SP cars... with the exception of those, the national fleet model is still pretty accurate, correct?

If you did not have any knowledge of the 1949 wheel reports, how would you set up your fleet?

I have looked high and low for wheel reports, or for that matter even tower sheets from my chosen period of June 1944 for Columbia PA. I have found nothing. Nada. Photos are rare due to wartime concerns. Films do exist, but mostly on other parts of the PRR (they tend to confirm the Gilbert fleet model and the Brock NP model). So, what should my starting point be?

As I see it, there are two major competing models being espoused (for boxcars)

1) The loco-regional interchange model. This model says that by virtue of proximity, connecting road percentages will be higher than roads that are further away. FWIW, that does not mean that if distant road X has 10% of the national fleet and close road Y has 2% that there should be more Y cars than X cars, but only that the % of Y should be above 2% and by default, the % of X must be below 10%. No data sets have been offered to support this model.

2) The national fleet model. This model says that because boxcars were freely interchanged that the % of a given car seen on any given railroad over time should approximate the % of the car in the national fleet. Model 2 is supported by several small data sets.

Additionally, there are data sets such as the 1949 Fraley and the Potomac yard set that do not appear to match EITHER model exactly. In both these cases, one to several roads appear to be "out of kilter" compared to the rest.

Railroad historians can argue the whys forever, but I have a layout to populate, so, what does this mean to us as modelers?

For you (Mike), is 1953 like either 1949 or 1947 or is it different still? Does the fact that there's a war on make a difference? Do we just throw up our hands and say it is unknowable, there is no perfect model and I'll just put anything I damn well care to on my layout? (we'll call that model 3 <G>) I've always held that the national fleet model is a STARTING place and that arriving at a realistic fleet is an iterative process. It's not that the model is wrong and useless, it is that 1949 on this line is a case where the model needs to be adjusted. Both 1947 and 1949 follow the national fleet numbers for most of the fleet, so why not start there and then perhaps increase the SP numbers slightly, maybe 50% over expected numbers? To model this line using the loco-regional model might result in the correct % of SP cars, and the incorrect % of just about every other road. I don't view that as a logical solution ;^)

My point is that while the national fleet model may not predict with 100% accuracy, it is a STARTING place, and in the absence of any other data, provides you with a reasonable representation of the steam era (based on the data sets). If someone is lucky enough to develop additional data sources, then those can be used to modify the national fleet model to represent some of those local deviations. Situations that might be included would be some that have been named, such as grain rush season and areas dense with automobile manufacturers (and hence assigned service cars).


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."
__
/ &#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

ORER inaccuracy

Robert kirkham
 

Given the assertion (and I doubt any will argue it) that the ORER lists would include equipment that was not really available for service - whether retired or in storage or .... etc - is there a realistic research approach one could adopt to try to identify what parts of a given railway's fleet were no longer in service?

I suppose if the ORER data was in a data base and one focused on dropped entries over time you would develop a starting point of cars where something happened (including re-builds, sale to other lines and retirements). But my impression from reading some of the e-mails that mention these issues is that cars could be more or less out of service for several years - some to return to service, others to be dismantled, etc.

Comparison (in another data base that to my knowledge doesn't presently exist) with corporate equipment lists would be another method of identifying possible equipment that was sidelined. But again, from what I have seen reviewing CPR equipment lists, this data is similarly prone to small but significant errors.

I wonder if anyone has spent any time developing a useful approach for sorting out this kind of question? I'd like to hear what approaches you taken when sorting out the history of a given group of freight cars....

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Stokes" <ggstokes@...>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:29 PM
To: <stmfc@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution

Except for all those times the polls are wrong, for varying reasons. As for the ORER, as previously noted, those can be way off in terms of actual cars in service, so another variable.

So what you are saying Tim and Dave are saying is that their stats show us precisely how many box cars from each of the railroad in the US at the time being modeled should be present in your personal fleet of models in order to run consists that, over the year, match the national averages? And if you are only modeling one small segment of the larger railroad, say the GN in 1951, the percentages still count, you just reduce your box car fleet in numbers by the percentages so that you stay constant in the differences? So if there would be 100 CN cars on the GN system at that time, and you only have 90 cars total, you reduce the number proportionally? But what if your line is not part of the main line, but an important branch working the logging and mining routes in the Cascade foothills? I may be completely missing all this, but I am trying to understand how this would work on the average person's home layout, or is that not of any consequence?

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA

ORER inaccuracy

Robert kirkham
 

Given the assertion (and I doubt any will argue it) that the ORER lists would include equipment that was not really available for service - whether retired or in storage or .... etc - is there a realistic research approach one could adopt to try to identify what parts of a given railway's fleet were no longer in service?

I suppose if the ORER data was in a data base and one focused on dropped entries over time you would develop a starting point of cars where something happened (including re-builds, sale to other lines and retirements). But my impression from reading some of the e-mails that mention these issues is that cars could be more or less out of service for several years - some to return to service, others to be dismantled, etc.

Comparison (in another data base that to my knowledge doesn't presently exist) with corporate equipment lists would be another method of identifying possible equipment that was sidelined. But again, from what I have seen reviewing CPR equipment lists, this data is similarly prone to small but significant errors.

I wonder if anyone has spent any time developing a useful approach for sorting out this kind of question? I'd like to hear what approaches you taken when sorting out the history of a given group of freight cars....

Rob Kirkham

--------------------------------------------------
From: "John Stokes" <ggstokes@...>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 3:29 PM
To: <stmfc@...>
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Freight car distribution

Except for all those times the polls are wrong, for varying reasons. As for the ORER, as previously noted, those can be way off in terms of actual cars in service, so another variable.

So what you are saying Tim and Dave are saying is that their stats show us precisely how many box cars from each of the railroad in the US at the time being modeled should be present in your personal fleet of models in order to run consists that, over the year, match the national averages? And if you are only modeling one small segment of the larger railroad, say the GN in 1951, the percentages still count, you just reduce your box car fleet in numbers by the percentages so that you stay constant in the differences? So if there would be 100 CN cars on the GN system at that time, and you only have 90 cars total, you reduce the number proportionally? But what if your line is not part of the main line, but an important branch working the logging and mining routes in the Cascade foothills? I may be completely missing all this, but I am trying to understand how this would work on the average person's home layout, or is that not of any consequence?

John Stokes
Bellevue, WA

Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

Greg Martin
 

Bob and all,

I am sure that the Stores Department were given a cut list of the cars types that they were currently building and those sizes were bundled and shipped off to the Car Shops at the time of production. If the car was cast as we know the F30a were, then minor adjustments were made on site. It really wouldn't matter where you started if you knew where the odd piece or two were to be added. I am sure the Stores Department would make any serious corrections in calculations (measure twice, cut once). I would bet that they were also pre-drilled?so they could be dropped in like a puzzle, at?least that would?the most economical way to do it, otherwise every car would be custom and that doesn't make much since... But hey , it might have been?that way in union?work rules, who knows.

Greg Martin?

-----Original Message-----
From: rwitt_2000 <rwitt_2000@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 9:00 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small







Bruce Smith wrote:
snip

I too have used scale lumber to build decks and I REALLY like the way
they look. When I do that, I start at each end and work towards the
middle. With a few boards to go, you should test the fit of the
remaining boards, as you may need to sand down several to make them
fit. This small adjustment in several boards will look much better
than having a half board in the middle of the car.
Bruce,

You raise an interesting point and question "How did car builders place
the decking on flat cars?" Did they start from the ends as you do or
from the middle. I have no idea. To save costs, I would suggest that on
actual flat cars there would be an odd width board or two and that would
be prototypical. There also is the type of flatcar design where the top
of the body bolsters are flush with the decking so these cars have
smaller openings to fit the decking into creating the potential for even
more odd width boards.

Bob Witt

Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

Gatwood, Elden J SAD
 

Mike;



What you say dovetails with the boards I looked at on an ex-PRR F41 flat.
The boards were oak, "nominally" 3 inches thick (closer to 2 ½"), and varied
in width to accommodate the distance between stake pockets, inboard of which
were boards cut to a bit wider than the outside width of the stake pocket so
you did not have any boards inboard of the bolsters with notches cut into
them, in that application. That may have been a Pennsy thing. The boards
also varied from about half a foot to about a foot wide, and were drilled to
allow the bolt heads to be fully recessed below the surface of the deck, with
some allowance for wear and tear.



Elden Gatwood





________________________________

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Mike
Aufderheide
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 12:45 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small



FWIW,

At the 2004 Monon Society convention, ex-carman Bob Schultz displayed an O
scale model of Monon car 7032 that he had scratch built. This specific car
was significant to Bob because as a rip track worker in S. Hammond IN he had
replaced the deck on the real car in the early '50s. Bob related that when
work was slow, the rip track crew would pre-cut 3x wood decking pieces from 7
½ to 12 inches wide. Some pieces had holes pre-cut for the stake pockets. Two
men worked from both ends to the middle. The re-decking took about 1-1/2 days
for two men. These cars are 53'-6" flats built in 1941 and are similar to
the Greenville cars modeled by P2K.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide

From: parkcitybranch
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com <mailto:STMFC% 40yahoogroups. com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:05 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small
I am building a wood deck for my CB&Q 52' flat and the original brass
deck measures out to a 2x6 which seems small. What size planking
should I be using? Thanks.
Jason Sanford
















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: 2009 Pittsburgh RPM

Eric Hansmann
 

I just found the details.

March 27 - 28, 2009

Railroad Prototype Modelers Seminar

Seminar: 1:00pm Friday through 11:00pm Saturday

Registration Form here:
http://64.71.51.247/home_files/RPM_Grnbrg_Mar2009.pdf

Registration fee: $35.00

Operating sessions on Thursday Evening, Layout tours on Sunday

Place: Sheraton Four Points Hotel, Route 30 East, Greensburg, PA
Hotel website: http://www.fourpointsgreensburg.com/

Room rate: $95.00 + tax.
Call the hotel at 724-836-6060. Mention "Prototype Modeler's Meet"
for this room rate.

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.

Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Bruce Smith wrote:
On the subject of creosoted lumber for flat car decks. We've learned here previously some railroads did precisely that (e.g. AT&SF), and that others (e.g. PRR) did not (Pennsy used oak, which was considered a "junk" hardwood at the time).
SP car specs say "treated" lumber, usually Douglas fir, but photos how a light color which is obviously not creosoted. My recollections from the 1950s certainly do not include creosote on any flat cars I looked at, SP or otherwise.

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: 2009 Pittsburgh RPM

Eric Hansmann
 

--- John Golden wrote:

Does anybody know the dates for Larry Kline's RPM Meet over in
Pittsburgh in 2009?  I hear there will be some steam freight car
(required content) models there.

====================================


John,

I can't recall the exact dates, but I do have a registration form at
home. I'll scan it later and post in the file section. Larry may beat
me to the punch though.

Eric Hansmann
Morgantown, W. Va.

Re: Freight car distribution

Tim O'Connor
 

Al

You can read the subject line, yes? I routinely delete messages (not necessarily
from STMFC) when I know it's a thread in which I have no interest. It takes about
2 seconds. If I miss something important I can always go back to the Yahoo web
site.

-------------- Original message ----------------------
From: water.kresse@...
Is there some way to limit this subject to say no more than say 5 e-mails per
day? . . . . unless there is NEW real data to share? . . . . or is there some
way to make this a sub-group that one has an option to receive?

Al Kresse

Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

Michael Aufderheide
 

FWIW,

At the 2004 Monon Society convention, ex-carman Bob Schultz displayed an O scale model of Monon car 7032 that he had scratch built. This specific car was significant to Bob because as a rip track worker in S. Hammond IN he had replaced the deck on the real car in the early '50s.  Bob related that when work was slow, the rip track crew would pre-cut 3x wood decking pieces from 7 ½ to 12 inches wide. Some pieces had holes pre-cut for the stake pockets. Two men worked from both ends to the middle. The re-decking took about 1-1/2 days for two men.  These cars are 53'-6" flats built in 1941 and are similar to the Greenville cars modeled by P2K.

Regards,

Mike Aufderheide

From: parkcitybranch
To: STMFC@yahoogroups. com <mailto:STMFC% 40yahoogroups. com>
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 7:05 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small
I am building a wood deck for my CB&Q 52' flat and the original brass
deck measures out to a 2x6 which seems small. What size planking
should I be using? Thanks.
Jason Sanford
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: Flatcar planking - size of boards? 2x6 seems small

Bruce Smith
 

On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:00 AM, rwitt_2000 wrote:


Bruce Smith wrote:
snip

I too have used scale lumber to build decks and I REALLY like the way
they look. When I do that, I start at each end and work towards the
middle. With a few boards to go, you should test the fit of the
remaining boards, as you may need to sand down several to make them
fit. This small adjustment in several boards will look much better
than having a half board in the middle of the car.

Bruce,

You raise an interesting point and question "How did car builders place
the decking on flat cars?" Did they start from the ends as you do or
from the middle. I have no idea.
Bob,

I think that however you can think to do it, it was done that way by someone <G>

To save costs, I would suggest that on
actual flat cars there would be an odd width board or two and that would
be prototypical. There also is the type of flatcar design where the top
of the body bolsters are flush with the decking so these cars have
smaller openings to fit the decking into creating the potential for even
more odd width boards.
70 ton flats usually, which interestingly includes the PRR F30A where I mentioned that there was a range in the width of boards <G>


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."
__
/ &#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