Date   
Re: Boxcar Question

feddersenmark
 

Doug, Further checking shows in 1945 33000 to 34999-1 car, 35000 to
38199- 2 cars, 38200 to 40699-1 car. All 80,000 and 2692 cu. ft.
although the lengths are now 42'1", 42'1" and 42'3" respectively. By
1950 there were no cars with these numbers. Mark











--- In STMFC@..., "feddersenmark" <feddersenmark@...>
wrote:

Doug, My 1928 and 1930 ORERs show; XM Box,steel underframe,#'s
33000
to 40699, outside dimensions 40'11 1/2", eves 9'6' extreme 10',
side
door 6' x 7' 8",cu ft 2692, 80,000lbs., 7,379 cars in 1928 and
7,327
in 1930. So, conceivably your cars could all be R.I. of the same
class. Perhaps, 40100, 36335 and 36145 were rebuilt sometime after
1930. Hope this helps. Mark








--- In STMFC@..., "Douglas Harding" <dharding@> wrote:

After the extensive analysis of boxcar distribution on the list,
I
have a question that may or may not be related. This is about
boxcar distribution, just from a different angle. I am currently
researching the small town of Ocheyedan, Iowa which was located
on a Rock Island line in far NW Iowa. The local coop grain
elevator
has provided some documents, including an inventory audit for
1929. Included in that audit was the following information:

cars on hand, full of corn on May 31, 1929 at Cooperative
Elevator
Association, Ocheyedan, Iowa
Car Bu
33276 1108
40100 1436
36335 1684
36145 1704

I have a Jan 1941 ORER, so checked those numbers against the Rock
Island, assuming they were RI cars on a RI track. I found the
numbers matched RI boxcars in 1941. What follows is the numbers
with the 1941 ORER data.

with Data from the Jan 1941 ORER
Car Bu
33276 1108 XM CRIP 40' 80,000 stl underf
40100 1436 XM CRIP 40' 93,000 stl underf Z-
bar
36335 1684 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf
36145 1704 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf

I have several questions:
1) did the RI have boxcars with these numbers in 1929? If yes,
are
they the same cars as in 1941 or different cars?
2) what is the chance that the elevator would have four RI
boxcars
loaded with grain, and not one or more cars from other
railroads (OK you data hounds, let us have it)
3) do these numbers match boxcars suitable for grain on other
railroads we might see at the Ocheyedan elevator? If so what
cars/railroads


Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org

ADMIN: The Philosophy of the STMFC

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Every now and then I feel the need to once again point out one of the major elements of the philosophy of the STMFC. From the very beginning of the group members have been encouraged to announce their views on subjects pertaining to steam era frt cars. Some of the views might be with regard to a particular model. The views might be pro...or con. One member might make a pro comment while another member might make a con. The forum then becomes somewhat like a debate. Members make their views and support them with facts and opinions. What should be noted is that one member's view might well be in direct conflict with another's. There is nothing wrong with that and the only real problem is when a member takes offense that others don't agree with them. IOW, just because you might be absolutely convinced that you are correct in some view, don't expect everyone else to agree. When you consider subjects like color and what I call the Nelson/Gilbert theory...neither of which can be proved beyond any doubt...there shouldn't be any doubt that disagreements will occur. So, take my advice and just make your views known...if you wish...and let others make their own judgements using what is presented. If others fail to grasp the truth and elequence of your argument...as in the case when my position is not accepted <G>...it's a loss for the others. Last, remember that you MIGHT be wrong [ gasp ] so don't take offense and become offensive regarding other's views. Why, back in 2004...or was it 2006...I think I erred about something...can't remember what of course. I...Oh yes...I misused the words "sale", "sell" and "sail"...again.

Mike Brock

ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Mike Brock" <brockm@...> wrote:

Walter Clark writes:

"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)."

I like that one, Walter. Uh...which box car red?<G>

Mike Brock
Walter Clark's voice echoes from the bomb shelter "Mike, it's got to
be the correct box car red. You know that."

I might just allow one box car in something other than box car red.
How about one of the MKT yellow cars to carry bananas?

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

Re: Boxcar Question

feddersenmark
 

Doug, My 1928 and 1930 ORERs show; XM Box,steel underframe,#'s 33000
to 40699, outside dimensions 40'11 1/2", eves 9'6' extreme 10', side
door 6' x 7' 8",cu ft 2692, 80,000lbs., 7,379 cars in 1928 and 7,327
in 1930. So, conceivably your cars could all be R.I. of the same
class. Perhaps, 40100, 36335 and 36145 were rebuilt sometime after
1930. Hope this helps. Mark








--- In STMFC@..., "Douglas Harding" <dharding@...> wrote:

After the extensive analysis of boxcar distribution on the list, I
have a question that may or may not be related. This is about
boxcar distribution, just from a different angle. I am currently
researching the small town of Ocheyedan, Iowa which was located
on a Rock Island line in far NW Iowa. The local coop grain elevator
has provided some documents, including an inventory audit for
1929. Included in that audit was the following information:

cars on hand, full of corn on May 31, 1929 at Cooperative Elevator
Association, Ocheyedan, Iowa
Car Bu
33276 1108
40100 1436
36335 1684
36145 1704

I have a Jan 1941 ORER, so checked those numbers against the Rock
Island, assuming they were RI cars on a RI track. I found the
numbers matched RI boxcars in 1941. What follows is the numbers
with the 1941 ORER data.

with Data from the Jan 1941 ORER
Car Bu
33276 1108 XM CRIP 40' 80,000 stl underf
40100 1436 XM CRIP 40' 93,000 stl underf Z-bar
36335 1684 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf
36145 1704 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf

I have several questions:
1) did the RI have boxcars with these numbers in 1929? If yes, are
they the same cars as in 1941 or different cars?
2) what is the chance that the elevator would have four RI boxcars
loaded with grain, and not one or more cars from other
railroads (OK you data hounds, let us have it)
3) do these numbers match boxcars suitable for grain on other
railroads we might see at the Ocheyedan elevator? If so what
cars/railroads


Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org

Re: Freight car distribution

James SANDIFER
 

For what it's worth, I add the following link.
http://atsfrr.net/resources/Sandifer/Howard/Climax/Cars.htm

Some may have seen this already. Climax is a very small town on the now gone Santa Fe Howard District in eastern Kansas, due south of Emporia. The town consisted of a house track and an elevator track in addition to the main. The above page shows every car spotted in Climax in a 10 month period of 1945. Of special notice to this list may be those with the note of #6. These 73 empty box cars were brought for an alfalfa mill that was 5 miles up the track. Notice that these cars come from: ATSF, Soo, C&NW, PRR, L&N, Sou, NP, DT&I, NYC, GM&O, MILW, RI, CN, N&W, CGW, LTSE, IHB, IC, B&O, CB&Q, MEC, PM, B&O, NKP, C&O, IC, SP, WAB, MP, OWR&N, SLSF, ACL, and UP. That's 60 empty boxes from 32 foreign roads in addition to the Santa Fe. Only 13 of 73 cars were ATSF.
______________
J. Stephen (Steve) Sandifer
mailto:steve.sandifer@...
Home: 12027 Mulholland Drive, Meadows Place, TX 77477, 281-568-9918
Office: Southwest Central Church of Christ, 4011 W. Bellfort, Houston, TX 77025, 713-667-9417

Boxcar Question

Douglas Harding <dharding@...>
 

After the extensive analysis of boxcar distribution on the list, I have a question that may or may not be related. This is about
boxcar distribution, just from a different angle. I am currently researching the small town of Ocheyedan, Iowa which was located
on a Rock Island line in far NW Iowa. The local coop grain elevator has provided some documents, including an inventory audit for
1929. Included in that audit was the following information:

cars on hand, full of corn on May 31, 1929 at Cooperative Elevator Association, Ocheyedan, Iowa
Car Bu
33276 1108
40100 1436
36335 1684
36145 1704

I have a Jan 1941 ORER, so checked those numbers against the Rock Island, assuming they were RI cars on a RI track. I found the
numbers matched RI boxcars in 1941. What follows is the numbers with the 1941 ORER data.

with Data from the Jan 1941 ORER
Car Bu
33276 1108 XM CRIP 40' 80,000 stl underf
40100 1436 XM CRIP 40' 93,000 stl underf Z-bar
36335 1684 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf
36145 1704 XM CRIP 40' 91,000 stl underf

I have several questions:
1) did the RI have boxcars with these numbers in 1929? If yes, are they the same cars as in 1941 or different cars?
2) what is the chance that the elevator would have four RI boxcars loaded with grain, and not one or more cars from other
railroads (OK you data hounds, let us have it)
3) do these numbers match boxcars suitable for grain on other railroads we might see at the Ocheyedan elevator? If so what
cars/railroads


Doug Harding
www.iowacentralrr.org

Re: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

I will try to keep my response to this afternoon’s postings in the spirit of the following from Mike Brock.

> The thread will remain open for replies. I would also remind the members that this is a discussion within the scope of the group. It should also be conducted within the rules of the group...meaning in a civil manner.

Tony said
> “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.”

Trying to observe last four words of the above quopte from Mike, I can sympathize with Tony’s frustration in having a theory apparently dear to his heart logically questioned after its being uncontested for several years. But ……. no point going further absent a summary of information buried in the archives about what Tim G actually did calculate.

One other comment that should have a response

> 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. ………..No data sets have been offered to support this model.

There are no data sets that truly support either model. Because railroads didn’t keep counts of foreign cars on line by ownership, the necessary data sets probably never existed. So the choice is between

a) a model that begins with a distribution in proportion to ownership, supported by a miniscule set of observed data not representative of any whole railroad.

b) a region/distance based model based on purely qualitative factors that are known to have influenced cars to move towards their home railroads.

My basic contention is that there is no reason to believe that some unknown factors negated the fiive factors that I mentioned in a way that caused cars to distribute themselves in proportion to ownership.

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

Re: ADMIN: Re: Re: Freight car distribution

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Walter Clark writes:

"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)."

I like that one, Walter. Uh...which box car red?<G>

Mike Brock

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