Date   
Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Fortunately, Jack Burgess has a stronger grasp of reality than numerous others on this list and is sensible enough not to run a model of a MWR box car on his YV layout and then have to explain and rationalize it to every halfway knowledgeable person who comes in the door and raises an eyebrow when they see it. In addition to accuracy, one objective of prototype modeling is plausibility. If something is implausible, don't do it.
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.

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@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
While the Nelson-Gilbert study is a valuable tool it does not apply in every instance. Regional carriers will get more traffic from railroads that either directly connect or are in close proximity. After carefully studying wheel reports for several years I must conclude that what I possess is a better indicator of what ran on the roads that I model.Company annual reports also support my findings.
Armand is lucky enough to have substantial documentation of freight traffic for his road--few of us are so lucky. But I don't think it, of itself, proves the "proximity interchange" argument. Other roads do not seem to obey that argument, so in Armand's case (as in a number of others), we see that each road can be different.

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

armprem
 

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


--- In STMFC@..., "Mark Pierce" <marcoperforar@...> wrote:

While the odds of any particular small railroad's car (most likely a
box car) would be on another, far-away, small railroad's tracks is
probably too small to measure, I propose that the odds of any one of
all such small railroads' cars showing up is much higher. For us
model railroaders, I say have a small fleet of "oddball" rolling
stock but rotate them on/off the layout.

Mark Pierce

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

Folks can argue whether the Nelson-Gilbert model is valid or
not 'til
they are blue in the face, but one advantage we, as WWII era
modelers
have, is that the Nelson-Gilbert model is the RULE... since the
car
service rules were suspended. What that does for you in this
situation is unclear, since the M&W proportion of the national
pool
is pretty small...say for the purposes of discussion, 0.1% In
that
case one M&W car would visit the YV for every 1000 foreign boxcars
that visit. Not impossible, but definitely unlikely. Normally, I
think most of us say "don't model the oddballs", but in this case,
this is a "teachable moment". The presence of occasional rare-
road
boxcars represents the REALITY of the WWII traffic pattern, and is
part of what is "normal" for that period of time. I have reserved
a
small percentage of my fleet for "interesting" rare foreign cars
for
precisely that reason.
Actually, there are many reporting remarks well under 0.1%. In fact an
analysis of the 1943 ORER type X and XM shows that the 100 smallest
box car fleets (per reporting mark) had a total of approximately 1860
X and XM cars - which was 0.2% of the national fleet - which would
equate to only one of those reporting marks in a 500 box car fleet.

In 1943:

The top 11 roads had 50% of the fleet. Sorry Mike, but NP placed 14th,
with 2.6% of the national fleet. But any WWII layout with at least 40
box cars needs one NP box.

For some idea of the "random" car, in addition to the 100 smallest
fleets, another 50 roads had less than 0.1% of the fleet - so Ann
Arbor (the biggest fleet of the 50), would be one out of every 1000
box car appearances on a layout.

Rather than think in terms of someone's fleet, another way to look at
it would be the number of cars routed out of staging each session.

So for a layout that moves 200 X and XM cars out of staging per op
session the Ann Arbor car would appear once every 5 sessions.

With the largest fleet, 22 PRR X and XM's would need to be moved on
scene each session. Five NP boxcars out of staging would be
appropriate per session.

But for the 100 smallest fleets, only one car, picked from a
collection of these railroad's box cars, would appear every 4th
session. None of the cars from this "smallest" road pool would appear
3 out of 4 sessions.

Another way to look at this is that 39 road's box cars would "earn" an
appearance every session, totaling 178 of the 200 boxcars appearing
per session. (Katy is the last "regular" on the list)

It would then be appropriate for the final 22 cars used during the
session to be drawn from a fleet of "occasional" cars that would not
be used every session.

18 more roads would earn an appearance at least every other session
(including well known roads such as T&P, Cotton Belt, D&H, WM & WP.)
These roads would constitute about 14 cars per session.

About 40 roads could be used for 7 more of the 200 cars - some
appearing once every 3rd session (KCS), and a few only every 20th
session (e.g. NWP).

One car per session could be drawn from a pool of 117 reporting marks.

For a volume of 200 cars on-scene per session, and assuming that after
5 sessions all of the operators have forgotten when they last saw the
rare, small road X/XM, then I would need a fleet of 178 cars to appear
every session (from 39 roads), another 33 or more cars to appear one
to four times per 5 sessions (from 33 roads), and anywhere from 25 to
147 cars with 147 different reporting marks that would appear only
once per five sessions (it would be appropriate for 5 different cars
from this pool to appear each session). Note that popular roads such
as Rutland, Clinchfield, Georgia, SP&S, DM&IR, TH&B fall into this
"once per five session" pool!

Minimum fleet would be 236 cars - upon entering staging, 89% of the
cars entering staging would go right back out, but the other 11% would
need to be "fiddled" between sessions.

This analysis is obviously very hypothetical, but it leads to a few
conclusions for a layout that moves 200 boxcars out of staging each
session:

1) Small road cars can appear in medium size fleets, but about 11% of
the fleet may need to be fiddled between sessions (into or out of
storage).

2) For an out-of-staging traffic level of 200 cars per op session, an
additional 18% of the fleet would be required to model the "rare"
cars, assuming that everyone forgets what they saw more than 5 op
sessions ago (this pool gets larger as everyone's memory gets longer).

3) Half the cars that appear each session would come from just 11
roads. While this might seem boring, it might actually enhance the
railfanning aspect of trying to spot the rare cars - diamonds in the
rough so to speak.

Personnal lessons learned:

A)This helps justify having a significant collection of rare cars, as
long as there is a large fleet of "core cars" that can be quickly
accumulated and put in operating order (e.g. shake the box).

b) Fiddling may be a lot more necessary than originally thought, if
"appearances" are to match the "Nelson-Gilbert" model. This has a
significant impact on staging design, and tends against the "put
staging under the layout" concept. At these traffic levels, for each
train entering staging, 1 in 10 X/XM's will need to be changed out.

c) To implement the Nelson-Gilbert distribution model, a lot more car
storage will be required at the fiddle location - enough space for at
least 40-50 boxcars.

One other quick Calculation (still based on operator memories only
lasting five sessions):

For a smaller layout with 50 X/XM's entering from staging per session,

- 17 roads appear every session = 34 cars (includes one NP boxcar for
Mike)

- 27 roads (and at least 27 cars) that appear at least once every 5
sessions. 12 cars each session from this pool.

- A pool of at least 20 cars, where each car will appear not more than
once every 5 sessions, with 4 cars from this pool appearing each
session. Note that this pool includes roads such as CGW, Cotton Belt,
D&H, MEC, B&M, WM, WP, KCS, CofG - so these are not "rare" roads.

- For the smaller fleet, 1 out of 3 of the boxcars will need to be
"fiddled" into and out of storage every session. Fiddle storage is
still in the 40-50 car range.

At the other extreme (not sure if anyone operates this big), for 1000
X/Xm's entering from staging each session:

- 70 roads' boxcars are present every session = 976 cars that appear
every session and do not need to be fiddled. 500 of these cars will
come from only 11 roads! (kind of boring, and kind of prototypical...)

- 31 roads (and at least 31 cars) that appear at least once every 5
sessions. 17 cars from this pool appear each session. This pool still
includes roads such as Ann Arbor, Rutland, Clinchfield, DM&IR, SP&S.

- A pool of at least 35 cars, from 119 reporting marks, with 7 cars
appearing from this pool every op session. Each car should only appear
once per five sessions. Notable infrequent roads in this pool for such
a huge layout include: Ma&Pa, LS&I, FEC (does not include ventilated
boxcars), and Virginian.

- For the huge fleet, only 2.4% of the fleet will need to be fiddled
each session. This is likely less than one boxcar per train to fiddle.
Interesting that this is almost exactly the same number of boxcars
fiddled for the 200 boxcar session. Only need around 60-70 cars of
storage at the fiddle yard (minimum).

It is intersting that while the small layout session requires a lot of
fiddling, one can justify in-frequent appearances of a much larger
percentage of the cars - it just happens that most of these
"infrequent" cars should be for pretty large railroads, unless your
operator's memories are short;-)

At the other extreme, for large layouts the major roads rule -
prototypical but not very interesting. This would add a "look out for
the odd car" concept to the op session much like railfanning the
prototype that might be enjoyed a little - "Hey, did you spot that
SP&S boxcar last session?"

Enough rambling..

Dave Evans

PS - I promise not to do this again - but I needed a long break from
some very tedious work. Sorry...



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

Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.552 / Virus Database: 270.10.17/1934 - Release Date: 2/4/2009 8:24 AM

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

devansprr
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Mark Pierce" <marcoperforar@...> wrote:

While the odds of any particular small railroad's car (most likely a
box car) would be on another, far-away, small railroad's tracks is
probably too small to measure, I propose that the odds of any one of
all such small railroads' cars showing up is much higher. For us
model railroaders, I say have a small fleet of "oddball" rolling
stock but rotate them on/off the layout.

Mark Pierce

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

Folks can argue whether the Nelson-Gilbert model is valid or
not 'til
they are blue in the face, but one advantage we, as WWII era
modelers
have, is that the Nelson-Gilbert model is the RULE... since the
car
service rules were suspended. What that does for you in this
situation is unclear, since the M&W proportion of the national
pool
is pretty small...say for the purposes of discussion, 0.1% In
that
case one M&W car would visit the YV for every 1000 foreign boxcars
that visit. Not impossible, but definitely unlikely. Normally, I
think most of us say "don't model the oddballs", but in this case,
this is a "teachable moment". The presence of occasional rare-
road
boxcars represents the REALITY of the WWII traffic pattern, and is
part of what is "normal" for that period of time. I have reserved
a
small percentage of my fleet for "interesting" rare foreign cars
for
precisely that reason.
Actually, there are many reporting remarks well under 0.1%. In fact an
analysis of the 1943 ORER type X and XM shows that the 100 smallest
box car fleets (per reporting mark) had a total of approximately 1860
X and XM cars - which was 0.2% of the national fleet - which would
equate to only one of those reporting marks in a 500 box car fleet.

In 1943:

The top 11 roads had 50% of the fleet. Sorry Mike, but NP placed 14th,
with 2.6% of the national fleet. But any WWII layout with at least 40
box cars needs one NP box.

For some idea of the "random" car, in addition to the 100 smallest
fleets, another 50 roads had less than 0.1% of the fleet - so Ann
Arbor (the biggest fleet of the 50), would be one out of every 1000
box car appearances on a layout.

Rather than think in terms of someone's fleet, another way to look at
it would be the number of cars routed out of staging each session.

So for a layout that moves 200 X and XM cars out of staging per op
session the Ann Arbor car would appear once every 5 sessions.

With the largest fleet, 22 PRR X and XM's would need to be moved on
scene each session. Five NP boxcars out of staging would be
appropriate per session.

But for the 100 smallest fleets, only one car, picked from a
collection of these railroad's box cars, would appear every 4th
session. None of the cars from this "smallest" road pool would appear
3 out of 4 sessions.

Another way to look at this is that 39 road's box cars would "earn" an
appearance every session, totaling 178 of the 200 boxcars appearing
per session. (Katy is the last "regular" on the list)

It would then be appropriate for the final 22 cars used during the
session to be drawn from a fleet of "occasional" cars that would not
be used every session.

18 more roads would earn an appearance at least every other session
(including well known roads such as T&P, Cotton Belt, D&H, WM & WP.)
These roads would constitute about 14 cars per session.

About 40 roads could be used for 7 more of the 200 cars - some
appearing once every 3rd session (KCS), and a few only every 20th
session (e.g. NWP).

One car per session could be drawn from a pool of 117 reporting marks.

For a volume of 200 cars on-scene per session, and assuming that after
5 sessions all of the operators have forgotten when they last saw the
rare, small road X/XM, then I would need a fleet of 178 cars to appear
every session (from 39 roads), another 33 or more cars to appear one
to four times per 5 sessions (from 33 roads), and anywhere from 25 to
147 cars with 147 different reporting marks that would appear only
once per five sessions (it would be appropriate for 5 different cars
from this pool to appear each session). Note that popular roads such
as Rutland, Clinchfield, Georgia, SP&S, DM&IR, TH&B fall into this
"once per five session" pool!

Minimum fleet would be 236 cars - upon entering staging, 89% of the
cars entering staging would go right back out, but the other 11% would
need to be "fiddled" between sessions.

This analysis is obviously very hypothetical, but it leads to a few
conclusions for a layout that moves 200 boxcars out of staging each
session:

1) Small road cars can appear in medium size fleets, but about 11% of
the fleet may need to be fiddled between sessions (into or out of
storage).

2) For an out-of-staging traffic level of 200 cars per op session, an
additional 18% of the fleet would be required to model the "rare"
cars, assuming that everyone forgets what they saw more than 5 op
sessions ago (this pool gets larger as everyone's memory gets longer).

3) Half the cars that appear each session would come from just 11
roads. While this might seem boring, it might actually enhance the
railfanning aspect of trying to spot the rare cars - diamonds in the
rough so to speak.

Personnal lessons learned:

A)This helps justify having a significant collection of rare cars, as
long as there is a large fleet of "core cars" that can be quickly
accumulated and put in operating order (e.g. shake the box).

b) Fiddling may be a lot more necessary than originally thought, if
"appearances" are to match the "Nelson-Gilbert" model. This has a
significant impact on staging design, and tends against the "put
staging under the layout" concept. At these traffic levels, for each
train entering staging, 1 in 10 X/XM's will need to be changed out.

c) To implement the Nelson-Gilbert distribution model, a lot more car
storage will be required at the fiddle location - enough space for at
least 40-50 boxcars.

One other quick Calculation (still based on operator memories only
lasting five sessions):

For a smaller layout with 50 X/XM's entering from staging per session,

- 17 roads appear every session = 34 cars (includes one NP boxcar for
Mike)

- 27 roads (and at least 27 cars) that appear at least once every 5
sessions. 12 cars each session from this pool.

- A pool of at least 20 cars, where each car will appear not more than
once every 5 sessions, with 4 cars from this pool appearing each
session. Note that this pool includes roads such as CGW, Cotton Belt,
D&H, MEC, B&M, WM, WP, KCS, CofG - so these are not "rare" roads.

- For the smaller fleet, 1 out of 3 of the boxcars will need to be
"fiddled" into and out of storage every session. Fiddle storage is
still in the 40-50 car range.

At the other extreme (not sure if anyone operates this big), for 1000
X/Xm's entering from staging each session:

- 70 roads' boxcars are present every session = 976 cars that appear
every session and do not need to be fiddled. 500 of these cars will
come from only 11 roads! (kind of boring, and kind of prototypical...)

- 31 roads (and at least 31 cars) that appear at least once every 5
sessions. 17 cars from this pool appear each session. This pool still
includes roads such as Ann Arbor, Rutland, Clinchfield, DM&IR, SP&S.

- A pool of at least 35 cars, from 119 reporting marks, with 7 cars
appearing from this pool every op session. Each car should only appear
once per five sessions. Notable infrequent roads in this pool for such
a huge layout include: Ma&Pa, LS&I, FEC (does not include ventilated
boxcars), and Virginian.

- For the huge fleet, only 2.4% of the fleet will need to be fiddled
each session. This is likely less than one boxcar per train to fiddle.
Interesting that this is almost exactly the same number of boxcars
fiddled for the 200 boxcar session. Only need around 60-70 cars of
storage at the fiddle yard (minimum).

It is intersting that while the small layout session requires a lot of
fiddling, one can justify in-frequent appearances of a much larger
percentage of the cars - it just happens that most of these
"infrequent" cars should be for pretty large railroads, unless your
operator's memories are short;-)

At the other extreme, for large layouts the major roads rule -
prototypical but not very interesting. This would add a "look out for
the odd car" concept to the op session much like railfanning the
prototype that might be enjoyed a little - "Hey, did you spot that
SP&S boxcar last session?"

Enough rambling..

Dave Evans

PS - I promise not to do this again - but I needed a long break from
some very tedious work. Sorry...

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 4, 2009, at 12:49 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:
.... even the "G-B Theory" would predict an extremely low
PROBABILITY of a Muncie & Western box car appearing on the YV in 1939!
So it's no surprise that you can't find one in such a small sample. If
you had a sample of several thousand cars, I'd be very surprised if
there was no M&W box car.







Oh, come on, guys, get real. I've fast forwarded through most of
this discussion as being a tiresome rehash of the same old arguments
about car distribution, but instead of this endless speculation, how
about considering some facts, starting with fact #1: the 10/38 ORER
shows exactly 75 box cars under MWR reporting marks. 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? Yes, theoretically its possible; it could have happened,
even though the odds against it are astronomical. It's also
theoretically possible that the planet Jupiter is made of green
cheese (we can't say that any more about the moon or Mars, because
we've been there so we have concrete evidence of their composition).
Fortunately, Jack Burgess has a stronger grasp of reality than
numerous others on this list and is sensible enough not to run a
model of a MWR box car on his YV layout and then have to explain and
rationalize it to every halfway knowledgeable person who comes in the
door and raises an eyebrow when they see it. In addition to
accuracy, one objective of prototype modeling is plausibility. If
something is implausible, don't do it. Even if you have evidence
that it actually happened, it will destroy for your viewers what 19th
century poet/critic Samuel Taylor Coleridge aptly called "the willing
suspension of disbelief." That suspension of disbelief is what makes
it possible to plausibly recreate history in 1:87 (or whatever other)
scale. If you're going to do things that are highly implausible
because they're interesting or "cute," you might as well go back to
running Lionel around the Christmas tree.

Richard Hendrickson

Re: The third hand

peteraue
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Manfred Lorenz" <germanfred55@...> wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "peteraue" <peteraue@> wrote:
I built a number of resin kit boxcars and found a properly sized
wood
block and a few rubber bands almost ideal. The thickness of the wood
block exactly matches the inside width of the boxcar and it must be
3/8" or so shorter than the inside length of the car. I attach both
car sides and the car floor to the block (with rubber bands)and glue
the floor to the sides. If sides and floor do not line up
perfectly, I
sand them flush with the wood block in place. Thereafter I attach
the
ends (more rubber bands)such that there are gaps between the ends of
the block and the car ends. I line it all up, run ACC down on the
inside of all four corners and bingo - I have a perfectly square
carbody. I leave the wood block inside the carbody for detailing the
underframe until I must take it out for attaching the roof.
Thanks for sharing your technique. That sounds straight forward and
simple. What bothers me is the sanding part. Albeit easy enough.

I have to do without the clamp. Reading your way of doing it it
appears to me to try using super magnets semi-permanently tacked to
the outer surface of the car sides and ends and position them on a
block of iron replacing the rubber bands. What it still needs is also
a perfectly parallel inner surface of each part.

Hmm, thinking while writing: How abouts three (3) screws through the
block that adjust the part to parallel with the block from below? The
holes are sunken into the block so they don't obstruct the opposit
side they try to adjust. The magnets should perhaps be strong enough
to overcome the small distances involved to compensate for any back
side irregularities. Or the screws have a moveable plate on their
tips like a clamp which is large enough to give the magnets a partner
to grip without being too precisely positioned?

Maybe some bluetack could replace the magnets? Then the block has to
be smaller than the width of the car to allow for the modelling clay.

Maybe a product idea?

Manfred
Manfred,

My wood block approach only works if the wood has a smooth surface and
the thickness of the block matches the inside width of the car very
well. Different width cars require different size blocks. For me that
is not a problem. I have access to a thickness planer which permits
dimensional tolerances of approximately +/- .1mm. I found car sides
have extremely small variations in thickness so I see no need for
anything adjustable.
Peter Aue

N_G data was Re: Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

SUVCWORR@...
 

Is the Nelson-Gilbert data in the group files? If so, I could not identify
it or don't know what I am looking for. If not where might it be located?

TIA

Rich Orr

**************Stay up to date on the latest news - from sports scores to
stocks and so much more. (http://aol.com?ncid=emlcntaolcom00000022)

Re: PRR FM40 - Sunshine vs F&C Decals for circa 1942?

Bruce Smith
 

On Feb 4, 2009, at 2:45 PM, parkcitybranch wrote:

I need some decals to letter a few PRR FM40 flat cars. I looked at
the decals available from Sunshine and they are described as "late
steam era". What exactly does that mean? I want to model the cars
circa 1942, will the Sunshine decals let me do that or should I use
the F&C decals? I am concerned about some of the F&C decals because
of the comments in the archives but I am not sure if those comments
apply to the PRR FM40 decals. Thanks.

Jason Sanford
Jason,

There is no "FM40" class of PRR flat car. Since you refer to both sunshine and F&C, I'm going with class "FM", which was a 40' car (is that what the 40 is?). The Sunshine decals are definitely better quality than the F&C. As listed by Sunshine, the kit is simply PRR Revenue service and few if any of these cars had anything other than their WWII era paint applied. I have not actually looked at these decals lately, having built my Sunshine FMs for MOW service, but you might also consider Champ set HC-97. In all likelihood, to get accurate lettering you will need to mix and match a variety of decals.

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: The third hand

Tim O'Connor
 

I just measure, file & sand to get the sides and floor to
match. The ends are rarely off much and generally you don't
want to sand off their detail anyway. I don't use spacers
but I have glued styrene pieces to reinforce butt joints.

Tim O'Connor

It was Peter who posted his method of using a wood block. I too find it
worthwhile to persue the ultimat accuracy in fitting the parts
together. Hence my idea of using adjustable support for the sides etc.

Manfred Lorenz
Bonn, Germany

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Tim O'Connor
 

Jack: You know you could get that Muncie and Western car in there
pretty reasonably. On the NEB&W website, under Mather boxcars, Martin
Lofton is quoted as saying one Ball Line car was on the road for five
and a half years, visiting ninety-three railroads on the trip. The YV
must have been one of those ninety-three, don't you think? Granted the
car would stick out a bit if you ran it all time but still...
But what was inside that car...Mason jars? Sand for making the glass?
Neither would have been run over the YV...maybe to Merced to be set out by
the SP but not moved to the YV.

Jack, of course not. It was being treated as a 40 foot general purpose
XM and was simply loaded anywhere it happened to be, for any destination.
This fact is well documented, and was the subject of too many complaints
and studies and annual reports to recount. It was even the subject of a
famous advertising campaign of a Monon box car (I think PS-1 CIL #1) that
went off line and didn't return for years...

But that said, even the "G-B Theory" would predict an extremely low
PROBABILITY of a Muncie & Western box car appearing on the YV in 1939!
So it's no surprise that you can't find one in such a small sample. If
you had a sample of several thousand cars, I'd be very surprised if
there was no M&W box car.

Tim O'Connor

PRR FM40 - Sunshine vs F&C Decals for circa 1942?

parkcitybranch <parkcitybranch@...>
 

I need some decals to letter a few PRR FM40 flat cars. I looked at
the decals available from Sunshine and they are described as "late
steam era". What exactly does that mean? I want to model the cars
circa 1942, will the Sunshine decals let me do that or should I use
the F&C decals? I am concerned about some of the F&C decals because
of the comments in the archives but I am not sure if those comments
apply to the PRR FM40 decals. Thanks.

Jason Sanford

Re: The third hand

Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@..., cobrapsl@... wrote:
Manfied,if the wood spacer?technique works for you great, but I would
hate to see folks think that there is suddenly a new easier way to
build quality resin kits.

Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA
Paul,

It was Peter who posted his method of using a wood block. I too find it
worthwhile to persue the ultimat accuracy in fitting the parts
together. Hence my idea of using adjustable support for the sides etc.

Manfred Lorenz
Bonn, Germany

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Tim O'Connor
 

Box car "shortages" were a common complaint in the STMFC
era. I am sure that a shortline near a major terminus like
Portland OR or Seattle WA could receive a real dog's breakfast
of empty cars from its connecting railroads (UP/SP/GN/NP/MILW/SP&S)
if car supply were tight. All clean 40 foot or 50 foot box cars
look alike to a lumber mill...

Tim O'Connor

There is a video tape...I probably have it...of a short line in the
Cascades. It showed Pennsy and NYC box cars on its trains. This showing took
place about 10 yrs ago so I can't recall more. I'll try to find the tape.
Mike Brock

Re: The third hand

Paul Lyons
 

Since the thickness of a resin car?side is never the exactly the same from one end to the other, even after sanded on a glass plate: and very seldom, if?ever,?are two ends exactly the same?width, I do not see how you can achieve any visual quality of construction on the models outside using a?"properly sized wood block"?on the inside as the spacer.

One of the?real keys to a good resin model is to get the side/end relationship correct and we are talking?about a?thousandth of an inch so being the difference between a really good model and a so-so one. Because I find it so critical, I now use a right angle clamp to assist in this fit up. However, let me say?I have built many kits without this clamp. Usually "tacking" the side/end togrther and breaking them apart several times before getting it right.?Because of this, I do not think a right clamp is mandatory, but I definitely think it is a big help if contest?quality models are your goal.?

Manfied,if the wood spacer?technique works for you great, but I would hate to see folks think that there is suddenly a new easier way to build quality resin kits.

Paul Lyons
Laguna Niguel, CA

-----Original Message-----
From: Manfred Lorenz <germanfred55@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 7:02 am
Subject: [STMFC] Re: The third hand






--- In STMFC@..., "peteraue" <peteraue@...> wrote:
I built a number of resin kit boxcars and found a properly sized
wood
block and a few rubber bands almost ideal. The thickness of the wood
block exactly matches the inside width of the boxcar and it must be
3/8" or so shorter than the inside length of the car. I attach both
car sides and the car floor to the block (with rubber bands)and glue
the floor to the sides. If sides and floor do not line up
perfectly, I
sand them flush with the wood block in place. Thereafter I attach
the
ends (more rubber bands)such that there are gaps between the ends of
the block and the car ends. I line it all up, run ACC down on the
inside of all four corners and bingo - I have a perfectly square
carbody. I leave the wood block inside the carbody for detailing the
underframe until I must take it out for attaching the roof.
Thanks for sharing your technique. That sounds straight forward and
simple. What bothers me is the sanding part. Albeit easy enough.

I have to do without the clamp. Reading your way of doing it it
appears to me to try using super magnets semi-permanently tacked to
the outer surface of the car sides and ends and position them on a
block of iron replacing the rubber bands. What it still needs is also
a perfectly parallel inner surface of each part.

Hmm, thinking while writing: How abouts three (3) screws through the
block that adjust the part to parallel with the block from below? The
holes are sunken into the block so they don't obstruct the opposit
side they try to adjust. The magnets should perhaps be strong enough
to overcome the small distances involved to compensate for any back
side irregularities. Or the screws have a moveable plate on their
tips like a clamp which is large enough to give the magnets a partner
to grip without being too precisely positioned?

Maybe some bluetack could replace the magnets? Then the block has to
be smaller than the width of the car to allow for the modelling clay.

Maybe a product idea?

Manfred

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

Marty McGuirk
 

A while back I posted a compilation of a series of wheel reports for
all northbound boxcar traffic from White River Junction, Vermont, on
the CV (it's in the Files section under
CVWRJboxcarpecentSep1955.html).

A couple of thoughts based on this particular exercise:
1. Excatly 1/2 of the cars were CN
2. There's a suprisingly large percentage of home road "CV" cars
considering the relatively small size of the road's boxcar fleet.
3. As a CN subsidiary, there would be a large number of CN cars on CV
rails since, IAW car handling rules most of those CN cars are heading
home
4. This data doesn't support any of the more common model railroad
perceptions of car fleet proportions - looking at these numbers one
wouldn't conclude that "everyone should be a PRR (or NYC, or ATSF
etc . . .) modeler" - there were as many IC cars as ATSF cars
5. Although we have reason to believe this data set is complete for
October 1953 running north from WRJ, we don't have the complete
picture of cars running in the opposite direction

The main conclusion I drew from this is I better stock up on CN
boxcars! Something photo study had already revealed to me.

And no Jack, no "Ball Line" cars for me either.

Re: The third hand

Manfred Lorenz
 

--- In STMFC@..., "Donald B. Valentine" <riverman_vt@...>
wrote:

At the risk of becoming the feature character of an EPA "Wanted"
poster I will state that I have used the smooth inside surface of two
pieces of Johns-Manville asbestos siding for this purpose for years.
I still have a slab of "Eternit" an asbestos product used for water
pipes, roofs and garden pots that came with my chemistry lab kit. That
is still level. But also stored at a secret (I forgot where) place in
the house.

Manfred

Re: Freight Car Distribution on smaller RRs

boyds1949 <E27ca@...>
 

Jack,

Do you have any data showing which cars arrived loaded and which were
supplied by ATSF or SP for lumber loading?

John King

--- In STMFC@..., "Jack Burgess" <jack@...> wrote:

Steve wrote:

Its been a few years since I last looked up this information but
I know that Railway Age used to publish this kind of data in
either their January or February issues (or maybe it was
monthly?).

We talked about this a few months ago regarding reports, etc. It is
obvious
that the railroads collected this information because of per diem
payments.
I have some AAR "Empty Freight Cars on Hand" data which was
tabulated twice
a month...on the 15th and on the 31st. I wish I had more but what I
have is
for the period December 31, 1936 through March 31, 1937. The empty
cars on
hand on those reporting dates were:

ATSF Box 14
GN Box 4
SP Box 16
UP Box 1
Other Box 7
SP Auto 1
UP Auto 2
WP Auto 14
ATSF Open Top 14
SP Open Top 3
Other* 13
* Other (Not box, auto, refrig, or open top)

This is obviously a very small sample but there were 69 freight
cars from
western roads (ATSF, SP, etc.) and 20 non-western railroad cars
meaning 77%
of the empty cars on hand on those dates were from western roads.
The
"other" box cars could have included NYC and anything else...those
might
have been in proportion to the national fleet. The Other* cars
would have
included tank cars (most likely ULTX), refrigerator cars (PFE,
Santa Fe),
and other types of cars.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

Re: ancient N&W gondola?

Charlie Vlk
 

Tim-
Who are you calling ancient???
To this group, ancient would have to have wood, unsprung truck frames and operate on strap rail!
The car is square in the middle of STMFC area!!!
What are those black and blue things in front of it in the video????
Charlie Vlk

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

water.kresse@...
 

Are these the 0.05 " thick sided box cars (w/9 welded panels on each side of the door)?  PM 84000-84099 Feb 1940 P-S Mfg, Michigan city, IN?   Noted on diag sht has them titled as Light Wt Box C ars.



Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "parkcitybranch" <parkcitybranch@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Wednesday, February 4, 2009 12:53:47 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] PS-0? 1940 Pullman Welded Box Car by AW Enterprises - Thoughts?

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



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

Re: ancient N&W gondola?

sparachuk <sparachuk@...>
 

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

I snagged and uploaded a JPEG of an old gondola from this
Youtube video
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Wh0zXSQbo>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Wh0zXSQbo

It's a low side car and I was wondering if it could
be modeled using any of the available resin kits.

Tim O'Connor

Link to JPEG
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/nw_210xxxx_gondola_mofw_green-paint_2009.jpg
Tim: How about Speedwitch (http://www.speedwitch.com/Models/k116.htm)
It might not be the same car.
Stephan Parachuk
Toronto