Date   

NYC Lot 859-B

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I am working on a NYC lot 859-B boxcar (50' Branchline single door boxcar).
I can't find a photo in my sources of the car. Does anyone know what trucks
the car had?

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Truck roof walk help NP 1937 AAR

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I am trying to finish off two models and need some help with the trucks. I
am working on an NP 1937 AAR boxcar. The kit comes with trucks with Spring
planks. I have the July 1991 RMJ which has an article by Ed hawkins. However
the photo is so small the trucks are tough to see. I think they are spring
plankless trucks.

Also the kit comes with a wood roof walk Did these cars keep a wood roof
walk their entire lives? Thanks.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


New file uploaded to STMFC

STMFC@...
 

Hello,

This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the STMFC
group.

File : /Proviso 1943.jpg
Uploaded by : losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>
Description : Jack Delano shot of Provise in 1943

You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files/Proviso%201943.jpg

To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles

Regards,

losgatos48 <losgatos48@comcast.net>


Re: Car Types for Team Tracks

Schuyler Larrabee
 

-----Original Message-----
From: gary laakso

2- fish; refrigerator cars?
Well, reefers if they're dead fish (I should hope so!). But they may have been live fish for
stocking lakes and streams. I know several railroads had fish hatchery cars (there may be a better
more accurate term), and that the GN was one of them. PRR and LV both had them, I think. Probably
others. These carried hatchlings from fish hatcheries to the locations where they were to be
"delivered."

SGL


Re: Reciprocal switching

Andy Laurent
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "gary roe" <wabashrr@...> wrote:
"...Each railroad establishes a switching district in which it will
arrange to have a car delivered, regardless of whose tracks the
siding is located on. Railroads establish reciprocal agreements
(we'll switch your cars, if you switch ours) to ensure that cars are
delivered.

"The road handling the switch will be paid a switching charge which
is determined by each railroad within each switching district."

gary roe
quincy, illinois
You nailed it, Gary. One detail that has not been discussed is that
the reciprocal switching agreement (or Tariff) would have a list of
customers (or stations) that were open to reciprocal switching. See
Page 8 of our (CSS&SB RR) current Tariff 6001 for an example:
http://www.southshorefreight.com/custresource.htm There are other
goodies in there too for anyone wanting to get in depth into
demurrage, intermediate switching, etc...

Since there are so many connecting roads in the Chicago Switching
District, we publish via a Tariff instead of specific agreements with
each line-haul carrier. The IHB does something similar with their
8000 series Tariff. http://www.ihbrr.com/tariffs.htm The EJ&E has a
reciprocal switch agreement for lumber via BNSF on their site:
http://www.tstarinc.com/eje/eje2/EJE_Reciprocal_Swtg_02-227.pdf

The GB&W Industry Lists of 1943 and 1952 show evidence of reciprocal
switching agreements at virtually every junction town...the serving
railroads are noted:
http://www.greenbayroute.com/industries.htm#railroads

I think reciprocal switching agreements were very common in steam era
days, but from a model railroad operating point of view they would
not appear different than a standard 'interchange-delivery' shipment.
The difference was in the accounting and paper work.

Enjoy,
Andy L.
CSS&SB RR


Re: Reciprocal switching - and the lack of it.

Schuyler Larrabee
 

Gene Green innocently asked:

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"
And speculated:

I got the term off a list of industries in towns along the CGW. The
list apparently includes industries located along any of the other RRs
in the town. Some are marked reciprocal switching - yes and some
reciprocal switching - no.

Does it mean that RR A could spot a car on the industry's siding
located along RR B?
Touching off a spate of sarcastic emails.

But never mind that; a lack of reciprocal switching could be a powerful thing: In Binghamton NY, my
hometown, there was a company called Moon Milling. This has been shown in many photographs through
the years, because Moon is one of a series of buildings which make great backdrops for model
railroad layouts.

The situation was this: Moon Milling was across the ERIE mainline tracks from the ERIE's Binghamton
station. But, the D&H's last few rods of track joined the ERIE main at just about that point. This
meant that the D&H had the switching rights to Moon, not the ERIE. This wouldn't have been much of
an issue if the D&H was the shipper of choice for Moon, and/or if most of Moon's inbound traffic
came from the D&H. The best information I have says that for both cases it was the ERIE. So, here
we have a situation where the cars to Moon would arrive on the ERIE, but have to be interchanged to
the D&H, which would then spot the car. The straight-line distance from the station building to the
finally-delivered car is probably >100', maybe less than 80'.

Moon noticed that sometimes their cars would arrive on the ERIE, and be interchanged to the D&H, and
then spotted at their unloading spot, and it would take two days to get that done. This was an
annoying delay. In addition, there was an inequitable split of fees, because the D&H was the
terminating road, and got a good chunk of the billing, for handling the car maybe a quarter-mile all
together.

So, the ERIE wanted to get rid of the D&H's division of the rate. Moon wanted their cars as soon as
they could come in. But the D&H didn't >want< to give up their juicy share of money for so little
work. How to resolve this? Well, the D&H was interested in making a connection with the Lehigh
Valley; the nearest connection was at Owego, west of Binghamton, and at Owego the ERIE crossed the
LV tracks. Eventually, the D&H was given trackage rights to Owego to connect with the LV, and the
ERIE got to switch Moon Milling.

SGL


Re: C&BT Santa Fe reefer question

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 7, 2008, at 10:40 AM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

I've got C&BT Shops kit R700, with 6' plug door,
4/4 ends, Preco fan plate on the side -- C&BT calls
this version "C1" whatever that means. The kits were
produced with the help of the SFMO and included is a
cross reference but -- I can't figure out exactly
which car is represented by this kit.

Looking through the Santa Fe reefers book, this body
looks very similar to some Rr-34, Rr-35 and Rr-40 cars
but none of the photos shows the exact combination of
ends and fan plate and door gussets.

So... any one know exactly what this kit represents?














Since plug doors are way out of my modeling era, I don't have any of
these C&BT kits. But if you could shoot a couple of digital images
of the car body and send 'em along as attachments, I can probably
answer your question.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Reciprocal switching

B.T. Charles
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Keith Jordan <ckjordan@...> wrote:

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"
In Bellows Falls, VT, the reciprocal switching agreement was called
the Murdock Agreement, created in 1939. Through a time study done by
both the Boston & Maine and the Rutland Railroad, it was agreed that
the B&M received 80% and the Rutland 20% of the income from industries
switched jointly in the Bellows Falls Terminal. This agreement
technically lasted until the end of the Rutland in '61, but actually
ended when the last Bellows Falls Switcher job was abolished.

Romi Romano


Re: Reciprocal switching

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Dec 7, 2008, at 1:17 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

I know that some denizens of this group are predisposed to consider
anything
found on the internet as complete bullsh_t....



C'mon, Kurt, this is gratuitous misrepresentation. No one on this
list has made any such claim, or anything close to it. Many of us,
however, tend to distrust information found on the internet unless
there is ample corroboration. There's a fair amount of absolute BS
out there on the net, and a great deal more information that is
inaccurate or incomplete. And much of it is so ephemeral that errors
never get corrected. By contrast, if you make a mistake in a written
publication, as Mike Brock recently pointed out, you will be held
accountable for it in the community of readers you are addressing.
Those of us who write are well aware that, every time we publish a
book or article, we put our reputations on the line. That doesn't
mean we never make mistakes, but it does tend to give us (most of us,
anyway) a more cautious approach to the facts than seems typical of a
lot of stuff that can be found on the net. I can cite myself as an
example; I sometimes respond to posts on the STMFC list off the top
of my head, and sometimes I'm wrong. I tend to be a lot more
rigorous about fact-checking when I'm writing for publication.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Reciprocal switching

Keith Jordan
 

What is meant by the term "reciprocal switching?"
Gene and Others,

An example of reciprocal switching could be found in San Diego,
between the Santa Fe and the SDA&E. The Santa Fe arrived first and
had spurs reaching into various streets south of the depot at
Broadway. The line ran south to National City paralleling the shore.
The SDA&E came in 1916, paralleling the Santa Fe on the inland side
and wanted to reach the depot at Broadway. Rather than have the SDA&E
cross all the industrial spurs with crossing diamonds, the Santa Fe
allowed the SD&AE to build and reconnect the Santa Fe spurs to their
tracks. In return, the SDA&E would switch the industries off those
spurs and interchange to the Santa Fe, receiving a switching fee for
each car handled. The Santa Fe would deliver cars to the SDA&E, and
take cars from them. In the original agreement, the actual language
referred to the SDA&E switching the "city" side of the tracks and the
Santa Fe switching the "bay" side.

I hope this helps.

Keith Jordan


Re: Reciprocal switching

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

I think there were situations where that occurred, whatever it might have been called. One situation I recall was where two roads shared trackage through or near a large plant. Road A handled pick-ups and set-offs coming from the east or heading west, Road B handled those going opposite. I think it also happened that Road A switched Mon, Wed, Fri; Road B on Tue, Thu, and Sat.

KL

----- Original Message -----
From: Gene Green

Thank you, Kurt. It is good to have the correct information even
though it spoils the idea of one RR switching at an industry of another
RR in my industrial area.


Re: C&BT Santa Fe reefer question

Keith Jordan
 

I've got C&BT Shops kit R700, with 6' plug door,
4/4 ends, Preco fan plate on the side -- C&BT calls
this version "C1" whatever that means. The kits were
produced with the help of the SFMO and included is a
cross reference but -- I can't figure out exactly
which car is represented by this kit.

Looking through the Santa Fe reefers book, this body
looks very similar to some Rr-34, Rr-35 and Rr-40 cars
but none of the photos shows the exact combination of
ends and fan plate and door gussets.

So... any one know exactly what this kit represents?

Tim O'Connor
Tim and Others,

Here's the "key" to the C&BT versions: A,B,C,D,E all represent SFRD
classes with similar body styles, a "1" suffix denotes the body style
modernized, typically with six foot sliding doors.

A Classes Rr-19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 32
B Classes Rr-33, 34
C Classes Rr-35, 36, 39, 40
D Class Rr-43
E Classes Rr-45, 46

Thus a C1 is an Rr-35, 36, 39 or 40 after modernization with six foot
sliding doors and electric fans. I hope this helps.

Keith Jordan


Re: Carbody Window Screens

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

I have had good luck with black panty hose although I'm sure that
some of the cheaper brands are actually a little coarse for our
purposes.
Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, chapbob@... wrote:

Does anyone have a favorite product to recommend for HO scale
window screens
as found on cabooses, camp cars, etc.?

What I'm looking for is a fine mesh, but not so fine as to totally
hide the
window behind it.

Thanks!
Bob Chapman
**************Make your life easier with all your friends, email,
and
favorite sites in one place. Try it now.
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-
dp&icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000010)




Re: Reciprocal switching

Gene Green <bierglaeser@...>
 

Thank you, Kurt. It is good to have the correct information even
though it spoils the idea of one RR switching at an industry of another
RR in my industrial area.

Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Kurt Laughlin" <fleeta@...> wrote:

I know that some denizens of this group are predisposed to consider
anything
found on the internet as complete bullsh_t, but I think this has some
validity:

http://www.uprr.com/customers/shortline/attachments/prior_uprsc.pdf

See definition on page 5.

KL


Re: WWII 50 foot Steel Box

mikefrommontanan
 

According to the instructions with the 50 foot Rib Side car kit, the
Prototype cars were:

Cars 50000 - 50474 were built September thru November 1941
Cars 50000 - 50999 were built September thru December 1944

The 1941 cars were equipped with either wood or steel roofwalks,
while the 1944 cars had wood roofwalks only. All cars had 6 foot doors
and some cars were placed in to passenger express service.

Of course for further documentation, refer to photos or other
information.

Michael Seitz

Posted by: "Tim O'Connor" timboconnor@comcast.net cf5250
Sun Dec 7, 2008 8:46 am (PST)
You forgot the Proto 2000 single and double door 50 footers,
which are both circa 1940 designs. And Ribside cars now has
a 50 foot Milwaukee Road box car, although I'm not sure if
it is prewar or postwar.
____________________________________________________________
Click to consolidate debt and lower month expenses.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw2PBHvYnTbRju6WGSyMHEgUmyDzr6bQtWfQgHUG2I5Lb1xjD/


Re: Box car running boards...painted or not?

rfederle@...
 

Speculation only in my view but seems it would be more likely NOT to paint the bottoms of running boards but the underside of floor boards does not make sense. Consider that wheels will be slinging water and mud squishing from ties, that area would be high prone to rot. Place a heavy load in the rotted area and .....ooops.

But if the photo shows unpainted then that is hard to refute. I am sure hoebver that when cars were repainted the underframe and wood may have got a decent coating?

Robert Federle
---- Mike Brock <brockm@brevard.net> wrote:

While researching another item, I was somewhat surprised to note in the RP
Cyc, Vol 3, article by Pat Wider that the bottoms of the wood floors of box
cars of our period were not painted. I'm certainly not knowledgeable about
the resistance
to rot of wood used in box cars in the 40's but I can't imagine leaving a
piece of wood unpainted...on the bottom of a box car or the underside of the
eave of a house...either of those being in the state of Florida for a few
months. It is hard to dispute the photo in the article however.

Pat also notes that wood running boards were usually left unpainted. This,
of course, has been commented on before on the STMFC but I think it's worth
a review. Looking at my favorite color photo of box cars of our period from
above...namely Jack Delano's shot of C&NW's Proviso yard as seen on the
cover of Mainline Modeler...May '92...I can see no paintless running board
among the many box cars present. Included are C&NW, M&STL, SR, Monon, UP,
PR, PE and Mil.

Photos of frt cars are often taken from the ground...giving no view of the
running board.

Mike Brock


Re: Reciprocal switching

Gary Roe
 

Guys,

In his book "The Railroad-What It Is, What It Does", John Armstrong says:

"When an inter-terminal switch is called for, things can get complicated. Inter-terminal switching involves complex agreements between the railroads in every city. Each railroad establishes a switching district in which it will arrange to have a car delivered, regardless of whose tracks the siding is located on. Railroads establish reciprocal agreements (we'll switch your cars, if you switch ours) to ensure that cars are delivered.

"The road handling the switch will be paid a switching charge which is determined by each railroad within each switching district."

Then in another chapter:

"Within the switching district where these reciprocal arrangements apply, the originating line-haul road will "absorb" the switching and "per diem reclaim" charges payable to the other lines involved, giving up a chunk of its "division" of the through line-haul rate in exchange for being able to compete for the traffic from shippers not located on its tracks."

gary roe
quincy, illinois

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 07 December, 2008 3:52 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Reciprocal switching


Tim O'Connor wrote:
> Tony, as usual you're confusing your sarcasm with insight. My point
> was that shippers cannot invent routes -- they can
> only choose routes available on the tariff. If you dispute that, then
> I've got a bridge or two for you.

I understand your point, and intended no dispute of it; but you
seem to believe it was hard to find routings in the tariffs. As for me,
i find it hard to believe that a shipper served by CNW and RI could not
get to any major and probably about any minor destination via either
road. You can keep your bridges.

> How is railroad A's access to railroad B customers reciprocal?

Because railroad B got access to railroad A's customers too.
Doesn't seem a subtle point to me.

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


Box car running boards...painted or not?

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

While researching another item, I was somewhat surprised to note in the RP
Cyc, Vol 3, article by Pat Wider that the bottoms of the wood floors of box
cars of our period were not painted. I'm certainly not knowledgeable about the resistance
to rot of wood used in box cars in the 40's but I can't imagine leaving a
piece of wood unpainted...on the bottom of a box car or the underside of the
eave of a house...either of those being in the state of Florida for a few
months. It is hard to dispute the photo in the article however.

Pat also notes that wood running boards were usually left unpainted. This,
of course, has been commented on before on the STMFC but I think it's worth
a review. Looking at my favorite color photo of box cars of our period from
above...namely Jack Delano's shot of C&NW's Proviso yard as seen on the
cover of Mainline Modeler...May '92...I can see no paintless running board
among the many box cars present. Included are C&NW, M&STL, SR, Monon, UP,
PR, PE and Mil.

Photos of frt cars are often taken from the ground...giving no view of the running board.

Mike Brock


Re: WWII 50 foot Steel Box

Jim & Lisa Hayes <jimandlisa97225@...>
 

Dave originally said that he was not very resin literate. Speedwitch's N&W
boxcar was originally marketed by Pocahontas Models. The one-piece body and
underframe are very nice. Almost all the details are etched stainless steel
and I'd hesitate to recommend it someone without a fair amount of 'beyond
plastic' experience.
I don't have the C of G door and a half boxcar kit but since it's a Ted
Culotta design, I'm sure it's much easier.

Jim Hayes
Portland Oregon

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ron
Smith
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 9:19 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] WWII 50 foot Steel Box

Dale,
Sorry, forgot this one in the first reply ((just woke up....)
Speedwitch N&W B-4/ B-4A 50' Boxcars.
http://www.speedwitch.com/Models/k115.htm
The Speedwitch kits are one piece bodies, with good instructions.
Ron Smith
Carman UPRR

----- Original Message -----
From: devansprr
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, December 07, 2008 8:01 AM
Subject: [STMFC] WWII 50 foot Steel Box


I'm reviewing my WWII era freight car fleet analysis, and find that
there is a significant gap in 50 foot steel box cars in HO for that
period.

The '43 ORER shows around 31,000 steel 50 footers, and around 20,000
wood 50 footers.

For steel cars, it seems like the only non-resin cars available in HO
are the PRR cars from Bowser.

Am I missing something? Is this because not many 50 footers to that
point were of a common design, hence few models? Is it because
immediate post war 50 footers quickly became the dominant fleet, which
is why everyone is making post-war 50 footers?

And not being very resin literate, any resin recommendations for a
WWII 50 foot steel box fleet (probably need just a few - recognizing
they were only 3.5% of the national boxcar fleet?)

Thanks,
Dave Evans






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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1834 - Release Date: 12/6/2008
4:55 PM





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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: The Atlas model of Cudahy meat reefers

Roger Hinman <rhinman@...>
 

You must still pay attention to the period you model. The MDT 8 hinge
cars were all rebuilt by about 1926; if your modeling period is
1911-1926 you're all set; the Rutland versions of this car ran into
the fifties which was the motivation for this kit.

Roger Hinman

On Dec 7, 2008, at 12:05 PM, S hed wrote:


As a FYI to the group, Bethlehem Car Works offers a MDT 40' Reefer
with the 8-hinges for sale. Here is the web link:

http://www.bethlehemcarworks.com/Products/Rutland_Car_Shops/Rolling_Stock/RCS-MDT.html

It is supposed to be a car based on the MDT Co's blue prints and
from the 1919 Car Builder's Encyclopedia. And it is supposed to
represent the NYC series 155000 to 156999 and MC series 16000 to
16249 built between 1913 and 1917.

The good news about the kit is that it is a one-piece body but I am
not sure if it is a resin kit or not. I model 1926 and the kit in
the picture is car #145831 which fits in with the 145000 to 145999
car series (978 cars in 1926). And comparing the car series
dimensions with the other MDT car series, it is an exact match for
the 155000 to 155999 series (971 cars in 1926) but a close match to
the 144000 to 144513 series (509 cars in 1926) and the 156000 to
156299 series (291 cars in 1926). Whether any of these car series
have the 8 hinges or not needs to be confirmed by photographs. Or
even if the kit is an accurate NYC/MC/MDT car.

I have both the Billboard Reefer book (thanks to Mr Hendrickson and
Mr Kaminski for making an outstanding book) and the Reefer Car Color
Guide (thanks to Mr Green). In the Billboard Reefer book, on pages
171 to 173, are examples of this car that was operated by Dairy
Shippers Dispatch, which was a small car leasing company out of
Chicago. This car kit appears to match these cars down to the end
strapping but the DSDX cars are 36' and 37'.

If the kit matches the prototype than I think I will need to order
one.

- Steve Hedlund
Everett, WA

To: STMFC@yahoogroups.comFrom: rhendrickson@opendoor.comDate: Sat, 6
Dec 2008 15:56:00 -0800Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: The Atlas model of
Cudahy meat reefers

On Dec 6, 2008, at 5:39 AM, Donald B. Valentine wrote:> Cudahy was
also represented in the Boston area at least up> through WW II
AFAIK. With that in mind I've had interest in the Atlas> 36 ft. meat
reefer. It is my understanding, and I'm looking for> correction on
this, that the Atlas car was modeled after a Cudahy> prototype,
particularly with the odd use of only four hinges for the> two
halves of each door. Is this or is it not correct? Also, are> photos
available for such cars in other than the "billboard" paint> offered
by Atlas and, if so, are decals available. If what I'm> questioning
is correct it is a shame that Atlas has offered that> model painted
for just about every packing company that ever existed> but,
apparently, few that any of us can use and be prototypically>
correct as it is also my understanding that Cudahy was about the
only> packer that used these oddball prototyes. I'd just like to
have a> couple in a! later Cudahy paint that is prototyically
correct....>I'm always surprised (though perhaps I shouldn't be, by
now) when a lot of speculation and mis-information is posted on a
subject which is well documented. The responses to Don's query are a
notable example. 36" meat reefers with four hinges on each door were
not at all exclusive to Cudahy; large numbers of them were built in
the 1920s (as well as 40' cars with the same door hinge arrangement)
by the Pressed Steel Car Co.'s Hegewich, IL plant. North American
Despatch owned many such cars and applied a variety of billboard P/L
schemes to them, and smaller numbers were owned by other leasing
companies (e.g., MDT). There are many photos of these cars in the
Billboard Refrigerator Car book by myself and Ed Kaminski that was
recently published by Signature Press. For the Cudahy cars, see pp.
39-40 and 180; for the NADX cars, see pp. 50-59. Other examples are
scattered elsewhere in the book. That's not to say that so! me of
the Atlas models aren't bogus - a bunch of them are - but some are
correct (except for the model's unfortunate shortcomings) and the
book shows many other examples that Atlas hasn't yet produced, but
could. This is yet another instance where what you want to know may
not be on the internet but is readily available elsewhere. The book
has been widely advertised and reviewed, and if you don't want to
buy it, then any library should be able to get a copy via
interlibrary loan. The day when every piece of information known to
man can be googled may be coming, but it ain't here yet.Richard
Hendrickson

__________________________________________________________
You live life online. So we put Windows on the web.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/127032869/direct/01/




108641 - 108660 of 186158