The June issue of MM in the section entitled I think "Miscellaneous"
has a short section on reporting marks and responds to why
some "Private Owner" reporting marks ended in "X" and others did not.
The author contends that at some point this was done to differentiate
those entities that were owned by railroad companies and those that
were not. (I am paraphrasing here) and gives as examples PFE and
SFRD, which were certainly railroad owned.

My memory of this is different. I remember reading that sometime in
the 1900's, I think actually sometime between 1910 and WWI, the ICC
started requiring ALL private owner companies to use X at the end of
their reporting marks. Private owner companies already in existence
at the time of this rule could continue to use their reporting marks
unless the ownership changed. Thus SFRD, PFE, MDT, ART and the
original Armour owned Fruit Growers Express (FGE reporting marks)
were among the companies "grand fathered in."

Thus when Armour was forced to divest itself of Fruit Growers
Express, and several railroads assumed ownership of the company, new
FGEX reporting marks were required.

Is my understanding basically correct, or is MM more nearly correct?

Bill Welch

You are correct.

Tom

lnbill wrote:

The June issue of MM in the section entitled I think "Miscellaneous"
has a short section on reporting marks and responds to why
some "Private Owner" reporting marks ended in "X" and others did not.
The author contends that at some point this was done to differentiate
those entities that were owned by railroad companies and those that
were not. (I am paraphrasing here) and gives as examples PFE and
SFRD, which were certainly railroad owned.

My memory of this is different. I remember reading that sometime in
the 1900's, I think actually sometime between 1910 and WWI, the ICC
started requiring ALL private owner companies to use X at the end of
their reporting marks. Private owner companies already in existence
at the time of this rule could continue to use their reporting marks
unless the ownership changed. Thus SFRD, PFE, MDT, ART and the
original Armour owned Fruit Growers Express (FGE reporting marks)
were among the companies "grand fathered in."

Thus when Armour was forced to divest itself of Fruit Growers
Express, and several railroads assumed ownership of the company, new
FGEX reporting marks were required.

Is my understanding basically correct, or is MM more nearly correct?

Bill,

You are - A specific example would be WFEX which was controlled by the GN and began operations on September 1, 1923 - WFEX having acquired GN's "fruit transportation equipment."

Tim Gilbert

Bill Welch wrote:

The June issue of MM in the section entitled I think "Miscellaneous"
has a short section on reporting marks and responds to why
some "Private Owner" reporting marks ended in "X" and others did not.
The author contends that at some point this was done to differentiate
those entities that were owned by railroad companies and those that
were not. (I am paraphrasing here) and gives as examples PFE and
SFRD, which were certainly railroad owned.

Peter Weiglin got it wrong, and you got it right, Bill. The date was around 1915, and the existing car lines were grandfathered. Of course, Mr. Hundman dislikes criticism, so a letter to MM pointing this out would run a poor chance of publication.

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

Peter Weiglin got it wrong, and you got it right, Bill. The date
was around 1915, and the existing car lines were grandfathered. Of
course, Mr. Hundman dislikes criticism, so a letter to MM pointing
this out would run a poor chance of publication.
Tony Thompson

So did this "grandfather" clause permit new offspring? Otherwise how
do you explain SFRB/SFRC reporting marks that appeared in the 50's?

Tim O'Connor

On 7-Jul-05, at 2:03 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

So did this "grandfather" clause permit new offspring? Otherwise how
do you explain SFRB/SFRC reporting marks that appeared in the 50's?

Very simply. These weren't considered private reporting marks, just a different reporting mark for the Santa Fe. Cars with these marks appeared in their section of the ORER with all of their ATSF cars.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@...
http://freightcars.nakina.net

Hey guys I am having a problem with "False Statement".Error yes, False
no.I don't think the author deliberately wanted to mislead anyone.-Armand
Premo----
From: "Ian Cranstone" <lamontc@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: False Statement in Mainline Modeler??

On 7-Jul-05, at 2:03 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

So did this "grandfather" clause permit new offspring? Otherwise how
do you explain SFRB/SFRC reporting marks that appeared in the 50's?

Very simply. These weren't considered private reporting marks, just a
different reporting mark for the Santa Fe. Cars with these marks
appeared in their section of the ORER with all of their ATSF cars.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@...
http://freightcars.nakina.net




Yahoo! Groups Links








--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date: 7/6/05

Armand, I agree that he probably didn't deliberately want to mislead
anyone, but he nonetheless made a statement without knowing the
facts, and that statement will now be perpetuated because it was
made in an "authoritative" publication. In such a situation, it is
incumbent on the author to check facts and be sure he knows what
he's talking about. To do otherwise is to leave oneself open to
criticism of the type being offered here.

Incidentally, has not Mr. Weiglin been an occasional respondent on
this list?

Jeff English
Troy, New York

--- In STMFC@..., "armand" <armprem@s...> wrote:

Hey guys I am having a problem with "False Statement".Error

yes, False

no.I don't think the author deliberately wanted to mislead anyone.-

Armand

Premo----
From: "Ian Cranstone" <lamontc@n...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2005 2:46 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: False Statement in Mainline Modeler??

On 7-Jul-05, at 2:03 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

So did this "grandfather" clause permit new offspring?

Otherwise how

do you explain SFRB/SFRC reporting marks that appeared in the

50's?

Very simply. These weren't considered private reporting marks,

just a

different reporting mark for the Santa Fe. Cars with these marks
appeared in their section of the ORER with all of their ATSF

cars.

Ian Cranstone
Osgoode, Ontario, Canada
lamontc@n...
http://freightcars.nakina.net




Yahoo! Groups Links








--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.10/43 - Release Date:

7/6/05

Tim
You said that WFEX was controlled by the GN, and their cars certainly
had those beautiful goats on them. However, I thought that both WFEX &
BREX were owned (controlled?) by FGEX.
My question is who really had the top authority over WFEX, the GN or
FGEX? And the same question regarding BREX and the CB&Q.
Bill Williams

Clyde Williams wrote:

Tim
You said that WFEX was controlled by the GN, and their cars certainly
had those beautiful goats on them. However, I thought that both WFEX &
BREX were owned (controlled?) by FGEX.
My question is who really had the top authority over WFEX, the GN or
FGEX? And the same question regarding BREX and the CB&Q.

Bill,

The FGEX was owned by a consortium of RR's including the SOU, ACL, SAL, CG, C&O, C&EI, FEC, L&N, NH, NS, N&W. PRR, RF&P, and others. WFEX was owned by the GN, and BREX by the CB&Q. Management, however, of all three Refrigerator Companies was placed with one management group whose President in the April 1949 ORER was listed as JC Rill at the General Office on 1101 Vermont Ave, Washington DC.

Who had final authority is a matter of Board of Directors vs. Management - FGEX had seventeen directors while the WFEX had six. Eleven of FGEX directors were officers of the stockholders while only two of WFEX's were officers of the GN.

Tim Gilbert

Armand Premo wrote:

Hey guys I am having a problem with "False Statement".Error yes, False
no.I don't think the author deliberately wanted to mislead anyone.

I'm not sure I agree with your distinction. "False" does mean "not true," and if Mr. Weiglin chooses not to check factoids told to him, he is most certainly responsible. Failing to check is "deliberately" careless and in this case led to a false 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

Be kind, and be tolerant. This accusation is neither.

In the context used, the word "false" is accusatory and unfairly paints the person on the other end unfairly with willful turpitude in a way that he most certainly does not deserve. There is not a person on this list who has not at one time or another been careless with "facts" or factoids, not as a matter of dishonesty, but simply because they were either mistaken, or they did not have access at the time to data at the time.


Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

In a message dated 7/7/05 10:17:59 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
thompson@... writes:

<< Peter Weiglin got it wrong, and you got it right, Bill. The date
was around 1915, and the existing car lines were grandfathered. >>

The date was May 18, 1910.

Regards,

Guy Wilber
Earthquake Faults, Nevada

Denny Anspach wrote:

In the context used, the word "false" is accusatory and unfairly
paints the person on the other end unfairly with willful turpitude
in a way that he most certainly does not deserve.

Well, I appreciate your concern for Mr. Weiglin's inadvertent error, as no doubt it was; but in my dictionary, the primary meaning of "false" is as follows: "not accurate; not true; in error; incorrect; wrong; mistaken." I do not see the implication of turpitude that you seem to find.

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

Tony:

I disagree with your statement regarding MM. Every time that I have
found a publication error MM has published it promptly. With Peter W.
involved I'm sure the matter will receive the attention that it
deserves.

Mont Switzer