Date   
Re: PS-0? 1940 Pullman Welded Box Car by AW Enterprises - Thoughts?

sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
 

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

Anyone familiar with the AW Enterprises HO Scale brass 1940 Pullman
Welded Box Car and can provide an opinion on its accuracy. Reading
the archives it souns like this car is also called the PS-0. Are the
PS-0 decals that F&C offers failry accurate? Thanks.

Jason Sanford
Jason: I have some photos of PS-0's I could send you for the sake of
comparison. The doors on the cars seem to differ a bit according to
the railroad. As for the F&C decals I'm personally a bit divided. They
aren't great but they sometimes work out okay. I've built three F&C
kits for other folks as well as a couple for myself and I try to find
a better decal if I can. It's just a ten foot height boxcar so except
for the Pullman-Standard brand on the car side I think any good decal
for that road will do.

Sorry this reply is about thirteen hours late.

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Mike, you model the UNION PACIFIC MAINLINE, for goodness
sake. Your argument that no Muncie & Western box car would
or should be seen seems to fly in the face of the fact of
many photographs of MWR box cars in California. How did
they get there? Did mothers & wives in California not use
Mason Jars to make homemade preserves? I know my Mom did,
when I lived there.

I think it's a safe bet that every XM box car type of
every U.S. railroad traversed the Union Pacific mainline
with a frequency AT LEAST proportional to its share of
the fleet and with a greater frequency for MWR because
there were so many Mason Jars needed to preserve all those
California fruits and vegetables.

Tim O'
Guys: I am astounded that so many words have been spent today because
earlier I said that if Jack Burgess wanted to go ahead and build that
MWR car he remembered from when he was a kid he could do so and be
justified (however thinly) in doing so. I figured if he wanted to do
it for the fun of it, why not? He could put it in a display case, run
it every ten years or so and just enjoy owning an interesting car.
Like all of us I know what Jack does and he does a great job at it. I
never for a moment suggested that it was mandatory that he build it
but I wouldn't let odds stop me from doing it.

I like building freight cars myself and the first thing I look for is
how interesting the car is. I've used Richard Hendrickson's book on
single sheathed cars as a guide on a few projects recently and I have
some more planned for the next few months. It's a good and valuable
reference. I must admit I didn't see the MWR car in there but there
certainly were some oddballs. I don't let the odds of a car appearing
in my neighbourhood deter me from building it.

Stephan Parachuk
Toronto

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Tim O'Connor
 

Mike, you model the UNION PACIFIC MAINLINE, for goodness
sake. Your argument that no Muncie & Western box car would
or should be seen seems to fly in the face of the fact of
many photographs of MWR box cars in California. How did
they get there? Did mothers & wives in California not use
Mason Jars to make homemade preserves? I know my Mom did,
when I lived there.

I think it's a safe bet that every XM box car type of
every U.S. railroad traversed the Union Pacific mainline
with a frequency AT LEAST proportional to its share of
the fleet and with a greater frequency for MWR because
there were so many Mason Jars needed to preserve all those
California fruits and vegetables.

Tim O'

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Tim O'Connor
 

Mike Brock wrote

Richard Hendrickson says:

"Fact #2: The
1940 Car Builders' Cyclopedia shows a total of 738,509 box cars in
service on the North American railroads in 1/39. That means that out
of 9,847 box cars, one was an MWR car. And y'all think that one car
had even the most remote likelihood of turning up on the Yosemite
Valley RR?"

Well...Hmmm. On UP in Wyoming, we know that during March 1949, the 35 frt
trains in Fraley's book moved about 75.7 cars per train [ did I count them?
Of course not ]. Of these, about 30 cars per train were box cars [ all those
reefers mess up the data ]. So...in a given day [ coincidentally, the
Wyoming Div saw about 35 frt trains per day ], about 1050 box cars moved
across Wyoming. The odds of an MWR making an appearance randomly are 1 in
9847.
Richard and Mike

Ahem. As I have explained many times before, PROBABILITY is not
the same as PROPORTION.

The probability of a SINGLE box car belonging to the MWR on the
YV is indeed 1/9847. This is the PROPORTION of MWR cars to the
box car fleet.

BUT out of a SAMPLE SIZE of 1,000 cars, what is the PROBABILITY
that NONE of them belongs to MWR???

This is elementary stats gents: (9846/9847) raised to the 1,000th
power -- or approx .90

That means the CHANCE that out of 1,000 cars, one is MWR = 10%.

Not one chance in a million. Not one in 9847. But one in 10!!!!

And THAT is why I said it depends on the sample size. So is it
unlikely that a single MWR car showed up on the YV in 1939? Yes.
But is it astronomically unlikely? NO, NOT AT ALL.

Maybe Jack wants to model a day when something unlikely happened.
Or maybe he doesn't. That's Jack's decision. But a preference to
represent an 'average' or 'typical' day on the layout is no more
valid than any other personal preference.

Tim O'Connor

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin writes:

"What I am commenting on is the tone of the messages. You mentioned the guy
who puts up a picture of something on his layout fascia. Why would he have
to remind himself that it was legitimate on his railroad?"

I'll try to answer that because...I do something similar. Since I model real places on Sherman Hill, I put photos on the facia of the scenes I model. Not because I'm trying to prove that I modeled real places and the Prototype Police shouldn't arrest me but because most people aren't familiar with the scenes and I want to show the real places and my attempts to create a facsimile of them. It's somewhat like displaying models in an RPM meet. It is not unusual to show photos of the prototype next to the model. It's not a proof thing but, rather, it shows the objective. As with my layout scenes, the viewer decides how well the modeler did. Hard to do that if you don't know the objective. It's very difficult to model with extreme accuracy a real place because, for no other reason, distance. So...it's not a negative..."Here, see...such a place really existed"...but, instead a positive..."Here's, the real place. I had to compress the overall scene but I think it conveys the right impression."

"Obviously the thrust is that there are
others on here or out there judging you whether you like it or not, and
while you have a choice on how you model you had dammed well better choose correctly or . . ."

I'm not sure how you arrive at this conclusion. For example, a few yrs ago we ran a wish list on the STMFC and, I noted that one car that was missing in action was an N&W hopper. N&W had thousands [ I'm not gonna look the numbers up ] of hopper cars and not one good model was available. Some very learned western oriented folks pointed out that an N&W hopper was not a good choice because it never left home rails. I, in turn, pointed out [ I had Richard Prince's excellent book on N&W in front of me which included a chapter on coal movements ] that N&W hoppers carried much more coal into the midwest [ Illinois, Ohio, Indiana ] than they carried through Norfolk and that N&W hoppers moved in bulk in NYC and Pennsy trains....in particular to the Great Lake area. The point was that N&W hoppers were common on RRs in the midwest region. Video tapes of B&O and NKP, for instance show strings of them. The point is, disagreement is not bad...we learn from such. I should also point out that N&W hopper cars seldom ventured west of the Mississippi River and only very rarely wandered over Sherman Hill but, nevertheless, the legend of the N&W hopper on Sherman Hill was born at that time. Coincidentally, about that time, Eastern Car Works produced a model of an N&W H2a hopper car. While a "flat kit", I thought it made into a nice model and commented on that. Another learned modeler in the east was not convinced and implied that I might need an analyst. Well...I couldn't argue with that judgement [ could anyone who has run Prototype Rails for nine consecutive yrs qualify as sane? ] but I did gently point out that the concept of the STMFC is that the members can applaud a model's attributes or cuss them...free from criticism. The learned modeler strongly agreed. I might note that that car still resides in my rendition of Laramie, WY...no doubt waiting for its brothers to show up.

"well, I don't know *what*, but people sure get
short-tempered on here, so I have to figure it's something bad."

I guess I don't see that. Certainly I have disagreed with the N-G theory in its most basic form and I take positions on color presentation that is in conflict with that of some others. We're all still here and we even drink beer together in Cocoa Beach in Jan.

Mike Brock

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

Um, better cut back on the caffeine, Kurt. Either you care or you
don't. Jack Burgess's example of putting the right interior in a box
car and then gluing the door shut illustrates the point.
Standard statement: it's your railroad, your models, your
operation. Do what ya want, when ya want, as often as ya want. It only
hasta be prototype if you so choose. The discussion you mock, Kurt, is
for those who do care.

----- Original Message -----

I completely understand the idea of doing things right. Jack Burgess' example has a parallel in the scale modeling world that goes by the shorthand ". . . Because I'LL know." I do it myself on my models.

What I am commenting on is the tone of the messages. You mentioned the guy who puts up a picture of something on his layout fascia. Why would he have to remind himself that it was legitimate on his railroad? Why would I "need to demonstrate" (your words) the plausibity of a scenario if I had researched it and knew it was fact? Obviously the thrust is that there are others on here or out there judging you whether you like it or not, and while you have a choice on how you model you had dammed well better choose correctly or . . . well, I don't know *what*, but people sure get short-tempered on here, so I have to figure it's something bad.

What I find really odd is this: If I recall correctly, there isn't any sort of actual competition at prototype modeler meets, so about the only forum where somebody could *ask* to be judged by fellow modelers of the same philosophy is rejected outright.

KL

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

devansprr
 

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

Dave Evans wrote:
Because the PRR would load as many of their cars as possible, many of
them would hit interchange roads in higher than the national
percentage rates (and vice-versa).
Is this supposition, Dave, or do you have a factual basis for it?
Tony,

Supposition, and all of my theories and analysis are based on WWII
when many of the car-service rules were suspended.

But I have fragmentary evidence:

- Pictures of WB NYC cars in the Altoona area are rare - too rare.

- PRR operated a very large "EMPTY" west bound classification yard in
Altoona. I think it served 3 purposes - (1) sort WB empty box, gons
and reefers so they could be blocked towards the appropriate home road
(should make for some interesting deviations from the N-G theory for
individual WB freights, which had significant percentages of MT's out
of Altoona - for example a freight headed towards STL may have a bunch
of MT ATSF cars, while one for Chicago may have a similar
concentration of GN and NP MT's), (2) provide a ready source of empty
tonnage to "trim-out" freights to the tonnage ratings of each train's
assigned locomotives when they were about to climb the helper district
from Altoona, through the horseshoe curve, and on to the summit at
Gallitzin, and (3) sort private hoppers that were in captive service
to the many coal mines west of Altoona along the main (or its
branches), between Altoona and the next WB class yard at Pitcairn
(east Pittsburgh).

- Note that blocking empties for common interchange points makes a lot
of sense - Altoona was a "choke point" of the railroad - everything WB
went through there, and while much of the loaded WB traffic was
classified and blocked at the east end, there were lots of MT's to
collect east of Altoona. Once blocked, they could be routed west with
little or no further classification, and while they might be raided by
a yard further west that needed MT's, they should have been able to
move west pretty fast.

- During the WWII era the PRR was still very disciplined about making
money (and they made a lot - but lacked the manpower and traffic lulls
to put it into RoW and equipment maintenance). In an operation big
enough to classify empties (for the portion of the road I wish to
model), I would have to believe that empties were assigned first based
on matching car type to load, and then to make money. Many PRR
employees wanted the road to make money - they had a good retirement
system that was influenced by PRR profits, and the PRR was probably
one of the more tightly managed roads. Based on their solvency into
the late 40's, I would expect that many employees made decisions based
on economic return. I think that sending a loaded PRR box car to the
west coast (when there was a national imbalance of more EB loads than
WB loads), would be a good way to make sure the car generated a lot of
revenue for many weeks, if not months. If the PRR was blocking WB
empties and putting them on symbol freights to get them west ASAP then
the foreign road MT per diem charges could be minimized and I would
think it could be a much better deal than leaving the PRR car MT and
loading a western road's boxcar instead.

- I think a former 50's PRR employee who had worked with car
distribution reported to this group (or possibly the ops-ind group)
that some of the stories about YM's not caring which MT's got sent
where, and not concerned about MT per diem charges, was the exception
on the PRR, not the norm.

So I confess that I am supposing a fair amount on the foreign vs. PRR
loading issue, and the only hard evidence is photographic that shows a
noticeable lack of WB NYC boxcars on trains that were often 30-50% MT.
And I would guess that if the NYC loaded a box in their territory for
a destination west of PA, they would probably try to take it over the
water-level route if they could tarrif it that way.

Unfortunately it seems PRR WWII wheel reports are quite rare - I have
not seen one yet, and only saw one on ebay for a location on the
middle division that went for an obscene amount of money, so real data
is quite scarce.

Please feel free to let me know if I'm wrong on this portion of my
fleet balance theory - this is a work in progress and any good data
and thoughts are greatly appreciated. But assault's on YM habits is
not terribly useful unless it is PRR and WWII.

I'm still pretty confident in the N-G distribution theory for the bulk
of the main-line traffic I want to model (per the earlier posts) and
for guiding my fleet purchases (very little to no captive boxcar
traffic in this region that I am aware of - maybe a little for glass
sand, but not much else).

Thanks,
Dave Evans

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Kurt Laughlin wrote:
What type of consequences are we looking at if we fail to demonstrate properly, or if we do something that is but possible but implausible? Ridicule? Public humiliation? An operator storming out never to return? The destruction of the offending cars?
Um, better cut back on the caffeine, Kurt. Either you care or you don't. Jack Burgess's example of putting the right interior in a box car and then gluing the door shut illustrates the point.
Standard statement: it's your railroad, your models, your operation. Do what ya want, when ya want, as often as ya want. It only hasta be prototype if you so choose. The discussion you mock, Kurt, is for those who do care.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson

This is an important point and of course goes far beyond freight
car distribution. But I'd modify Richard's advice to say that if you
are doing something in your modeling which is, let's say, of limited
plausibility but DOES conform to a prototype practice,

**you need to demonstrate same.**

I have a friend who put prototype photographs on his
layout fascia for anything in a scene which might strike some as
implausible.
----- Original Message -----

I'm just curious this post and the previous one, particularly the highlighted text:

Who exactly is it that NEEDS this demonstation when we are operating our layouts?

What type of consequences are we looking at if we fail to demonstrate properly, or if we do something that is but possible but implausible? Ridicule? Public humiliation? An operator storming out never to return? The destruction of the offending cars?

If it was me, and the response was anything more than "Oh-oh Kurt - watch out for flying pigs 'cause here comes that Ball car - ha ha!" I doubt I'd ever let the SOB back in my house.

That's just me though.

KL

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Richard Townsend
 

I don't think so.? It means that in the long run you can expect that a MWR box car will show up once in 9847 cars.? But you still could have two or more of them in one train. <VBG>.? But then, in the long run you should expect about 19,694 box cars to go by before you see another MWR car.? It seems to me that the real essential point is that statistics don't necessarily reflect reality, as the YV demonstrates.? Good information on what really happened almost always trumps statistics-based assumptions.

I'll take the MWR box car.? I'll run it with my pickle car to?my pickle canning?plant.


Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 4:46 pm
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs






Mike Brock does a bit less analysis than Dave Evans, then writes:
Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can have an
MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm.
Anyone need an MWR box car?
I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Dave Evans wrote:
Because the PRR would load as many of their cars as possible, many of them would hit interchange roads in higher than the national percentage rates (and vice-versa).
Is this supposition, Dave, or do you have a factual basis for it? Loading homeward-bound foreign empties was preferred under the car-handling rules, and though we know that most yard and local crews cold not have cared less about those rules, the rules nevertheless did bias empty assignments in that direction. That's why I'm interested if you have some data in support of your statement.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Ray Breyer wrote:
And the point flies completely out the window if you model the MWR as an online shipper, for any one of the three railroads that connected with them in central Indiana. The same applies to other "novelty" shippers like the C&IM, MRS, or anyone else with a fleet of semi-captive service boxcars, thus completely screwing up the Gilbert-Nelson model.
Not so, Ray. Go back and read Tim Gilbert's many thoughtful posts about this. He is talking about the cars from OUTSIDE the immediate area of a particular railroad--or what crystallographers call "next nearest neighbors," those beyond the nearest neighbors.

Essentially, the G-S hypothesis is a useful STARTING POINT for assembling a boxcar fleet.
Exactly what Tim and Dave have always said.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@..., "A. Premo" <armprem@...> wrote:

Dave,Which road do you model?Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "devansprr" <devans1@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 7:18 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs
Armand,

WWII PRR - the Broad Way - select portions of the 4 track main between
Harrisburg and Pittsburgh.

What road is your data for?

I'm collecting data to help "balance" a fleet currently being
collected, plus make sure I design enough of, and the right kind of,
staging.

I have what some view as over-ambitious plans (and some don't), but
need to build the space first - large plans on standby waiting to see
where the economy trends long term, and my projected long-term income
to pay for it. Confidence level way down from two years ago. I do not
want to go broke, but I also do not want to regret being too small
with money in the bank and too late/too messy to add-on again.

For now I help build and operate other layouts in the area. I'm almost
20 years from retirement, so space and layout construction is wait and
see - layout design, fleet analysis and collecting the fleet are
on-going. Regret not buying the right cars 5-10 years ago that are now
hard to find.

I concur with your concept of higher than "national fleet average" for
interchange roads - I took a quick look at the Southern Railway
conductor data out of Potomac yard (in the files section) - seems to
me as if interchange roads (e.g. PRR) are appearing at a higher than
national rate.

And this makes sense - if home road cars are higher than the national
rate on the home road, how can they magically change to national
percentages at interchange roads (a mathematical discontinuity - which
is not natural). Captive service can explain some of the
discontinuity, but not all. Plus if the road has excess MTs (as the
PRR did on the east end during WWII due to the large Europe bound
traffic imbalance), then I would expect eastern road MTs to be quickly
sent home to avoid per-diem (e.g. let the NYC find loads for their
cars - and they probably had a bigger surplus of MTs than the PRR
because I do not think the NYC generated anywhere near the same volume
of loads on their east end compared to the PRR east end). Both PRR and
more distant MT cars (e.g. ATSF, UP, SP, etc) would be loaded first to
either gain more revenue, or so the per-diem could be avoided for cars
that may take days to move off the system, respectively. Because the
PRR would load as many of their cars as possible, many of them would
hit interchange roads in higher than the national percentage rates
(and vice-versa).

So I'm generally headed towards national average, plus much higher
PRR, plus a little bit higher than national percentages for
interchange roads (especially small roads mostly within PRR's
territory). Note that all of this discussion is for box cars.

My very limited review of available pix seems to back this up, but
more data would be helpful. But I've read enough to convince myself
that my projected balance is plausable, and not so far outside the
expected that others would take issue with it when visiting, unless
they generated their own wheel reports, dumped it into Excel, and
compared it to the ORER data.

But I have just convinced myself that a number of the cars I now have
will need to be fiddled just so the rare cars do not appear too often
individually (e.g. that Ann Arbor OB box car), or the rare cars in
total are not too high of a precentage of a train's consist (e.g
should not have an SP&S, WM, Ma&Pa, LS&I, AA, CofG, MEC, and FEC in a
train with 20 boxcars - in any train with 20 boxcars only one of these
cars should appear on a very irregular basis - nearly all will need to
be from the top 30 roads). This may be less interesting and less
exciting (not spotting a rare car/road every 5 minutes), but would be
much more prototypical.

One of my main objectives is for operators to experience what would be
as close as possible to a typical WWII PRR day at work (within the
very significant constraints of scale modeling in a very limited
space). I want crew encounters of the rare car to be... rare. If I can
afford the space and layout I hope to build, then hopefully visitors
will be impressed by the shear magnitude of WWII PRR 4-track
operations (traffic volumes and densities). My grandfather worked for
the PRR during that period (57 years total - I bleed Tuscan) and was
justifiably proud. I want to capture that. I do not want operators
walking out the door marveling at all of the odd cars they saw in one
afternoon.

Regards,
Dave Evans

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Ray Breyer
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Mike Brock does a bit less analysis than Dave Evans, then writes:
Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can
have an MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op
sessions. Hmmm. Anyone need an MWR box car?
I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>.
And the point flies completely out the window if you model the MWR as an online shipper, for any one of the three railroads that connected with them in central Indiana. The same applies to other "novelty" shippers like the C&IM, MRS, or anyone else with a fleet of semi-captive service boxcars, thus completely screwing up the Gilbert-Nelson model.
 
Essentially, the G-S hypothesis is a useful STARTING POINT for assembling a boxcar fleet. But there are far too many "fudge factor fixes" in it to make it a true theory. Direct connections, home road car numbers, captive service fleets, moody yardmasters, picky customers, goofy routings, and various types of specialty loading racks, not to mention the ever popular "100 railroads with .1% of the fleet: pick one to model, any one!" tend to make any real car counting exercise just a fun numbers game.
 
Ray Breyer
Lies, damned lies, and statistics
 
(The MWR is a semi-online shipper on my layout: I need at least six cars in a 350 box fleet. There's a model RR that's about to get underway in CA that'll need their entire roster, since that NKP mainline goes right through Muncie)









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

Re: The third hand

Jack Burgess
 

Hey Jack,

Maybe these small smooth jaw alligator clamps would work for you.
Go to this
link and look at the picture on part #34, about half way down the page:

<http://www.electronicplus.com/content/ProductPage.asp?maincat=wa&
subcat=wal
That might work well Joe...the teeth on regular alligator clips don't
"match" each other, making them worthless for small items.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

Re: The third hand

Joseph Melhorn
 

Hey Jack,

Maybe these small smooth jaw alligator clamps would work for you. Go to this
link and look at the picture on part #34, about half way down the page:

<http://www.electronicplus.com/content/ProductPage.asp?maincat=wa&subcat=wal
I have used these to hold small parts, wires, etc., for gluing or soldering.
I replaced the alligator clips with these on a set of third hands that I
picked up at Harbor Freight. At one time, Radio Shack carried them, I don't
know if they still do.

Joe Melhorn
Orangevale, CA

I would like to modify my Xacto Third Hand...the alligator clamps are
worthless with small parts. They need to be replaced with spring clamps with
parallel jaws but I haven't found something like that...I want to be able to
hold things like .008" wire, etc.

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Tony Thompson writes:

"I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>."

Perhaps. But two issues stand out.

One, I don't believe box car distribution is random. The data doesn't seem to support it...although box car appearances may well be random along with a fudge factor...what one might call the Coefficient of Association...to be used in some cases [ UP/SP, for exampler ] to alter a random distribution.

Two, in many cases we modelers model frt trains...not frt fleets. IOW, there are known train examples...the infamous UP frt train with fully 50% of its cars being SP box cars, tank car trains, lumber trains, UP trains consisting entirely of box cars with no UP box cars in the consist, etc. In order to model them, we likely find ourselves with frt car fleets that don't match that which MIGHT reflect the total frt cars active in a given long term time span. For sure, train consists tell us that frt train populations are definitely NOT random draws from a frt car fleet that might appear over a long period. Instead, frt trains seem to be populated according to the train's function which...at least on the UP in Wyoming...were unique in our time period.

I might have a photo of a UP frt train with a Lackawanna hopper car on Sherman Hill [ I do ] and I might like to model it. One must, however, be aware that that &*^%*& Lackawanna hopper didn't show up every day....except in my case for which, of course, somewhat like Phil, the weatherman in Pittsburgh, every day is May 14, 1954.

Mike Brock

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

George Courtney
 

For pure entertainment's sake, wouldn't research into the Ball
Glass records of where their customers were located give a clue as to
where such boxcars would appear?

Where would Ball Glass jars be shipped? To food processors and/or
wholesale grocers? I think of their market as home canning with the
jars bought by consumers where? Or was the glass jar market
elsewhere?

George Courtney






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

Mike Brock does a bit less analysis than Dave Evans, then writes:
Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can
have an
MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm.
Anyone need an MWR box car?

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Jack Burgess
 

John asked:

Do you have any data showing which cars arrived loaded and which were
supplied by ATSF or SP for lumber loading?
Not by ownership. Incoming box car loads, other than LCL, included shipping
bags for cement, lead baryte, and jasper; some mining supplies; and
55-gallon drums of diesel (for a standard gauge railroad quarry operation
accessible only by incline). Outgoing loads included bagged lead baryte
(drilling mud), bagged cement, bagged jasper, and finished lumber products.
In August 1930, the National Lead shipped out the following 21 loaded cars
via these cars and to these destinations:

SP 14723 Goleta CA
SP 49026 Modesto CA
SP 41288 Modesto CA
SP 40263 Modesto CA
SP 23433 Olig CA (I don't know where that was)
ATSF 126378 Hobbs NM
ATSF 128533 Hobbs NM
SP 21087 Hobbs NM
SP 23054 Hobbs NM
ATSF 125210 Hobbs NM
ATSF 123019 Hobbs NM
T&NO 54056 Hobbs NM
SP 24207 Hobbs NM
SP 27401 Hobbs NM
SP 28532 Hobbs NM
ATSF 127713 Los Angeles CA
ATSF 128185 Los Angeles CA
ATSF 130312 Los Angeles CA
MC 98521 Los Angeles CA
SP 18398 Bakersfield CA
SP 125846 Bakersfield CA

A total of 13 out of 21 of these cars were SP or T&NO cars or 62%..

As far as loads from the lumber mill, I don't have car ownership but I do
have shipping records for August 1939, the month/year that I am modeling.
The YV handled 123 loaded box cars of lumber that month. Of those, 78% were
shipped out via the SP interchange and 22% via the ATSF interchange. Of the
SP loads, 57% were shipped out of state while 43% of the loads were shipped
within California. The loads for the ATSF were 70%/30%.

When added to the empty cars on hand data, it "seems" that the SP was
providing most of the cars and were definitely getting most of the loads. I
doubt that this was accidental or due to the clerks getting a bottle of
whiskey at Christmas (nor did the SP own a portion of the YV). The YV and SP
had a long relationship....long distance Pullmans (and some from LA) on the
SP were handed over to the YV to be taken to Yosemite. When the YV needed a
diner each summer, they leased it from the SP. When the YV needed some extra
engines, they got them from the SP. After a severe flood in late 1937 wiped
out miles of YV roadbed, it was the SP that provided a loan to quickly
repair the line...the SP needed that connection to Yosemite restored before
the beginning of the 1938 summer tourist season. So, regardless of
percentages of freight cars and other things, the YV was a good source of
revenue to the SP and working closely with the SP allowed the YV to
reciprocate for SP's support.

Tony....Is that an argument which might support the idea of "proximity
interchange"?

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Mike Brock does a bit less analysis than Dave Evans, then writes:
Let's see...when 9847 box cars have made an appearance, I can have an MWR box car show up. That means about every 100 op sessions. Hmmm.
Anyone need an MWR box car?
I think you've grasped the essential point, Mike <g>.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@...
Publishers of books on railroad history