Date
1 - 13 of 13
Hoppers to and From Canada
|
Justin Kahn
First, to Richard: I am amazed, sir, amazed at such parochialism! How could any right-thinking model railroader NOT be fascinated by the Rutland?
Next, respecting the presence or absence of Canadian hoppers, so far as I know, there were no coal deposits in eastern Canada closer than Cape Breton (which mostly shipped out by water) to generate traffic, nor much of the kind of major smelting and refining in New England that would have attracted inbound ore shipments Jace Kahn, General Manager Ceres and Canisteo RR Co. _
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>_________________________________________________________________ FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/ |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Justin Kahn wrote:
First, to Richard: I am amazed, sir, amazed at such parochialism! How couldJace, I do understand that the Rutland has its die-hard fans, one of them being my good friend Jeff Enlish. And I'll admit the Rutland was...well, quaint. But for those of us who grew up with mainline steam in the west, "quaint" palls quickly. I was raised on a steady diet of Santa Fe 2900s and 2-10-2s, SP GS-4s and cab-forwards, and UP FEFs and Challengers. I was fortunate to witness both Cajon and Tehachapi when the motive power was almost all steam. I once rode the cab of a 2900 4-8-4 from Barstow to Needles, almost 500 tons of locomotive pulling a thirteen car mostly-heavyweight train at 80-100 mph. And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco than anything the Rutland ever owned. I remember years ago writing in a magazine article that the Rutland was "an obscure northeastern short line," a remark that was mainly intended to tweak Jeff E., and got a vitriolic letter from a Rutland devotee questioning my intelligence, parentage, etc. in language I'm sure Mike Brock wouldn't sanction if I repeated it here. Among other things, he claimed that the Rutland was a "serious mountain railroad," which by western standards verges on the comical. The fact is that the Rutland WAS "an obscure northeastern short line." That it had character I'd be the first to admit. That it may have been lovable I will not deny, since beauty is notoriously in the eye of the beholder. And I can certainly understand why modelers for whom coal traffic is a big deal might be interested in coal movements at the Alburgh trestle. But do I find the Rutland fascinating? Uh, sorry, not even close. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Fred in Vt. <pennsy@...>
Rich,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Don't despair, I live in Bennington, Vt. and model the PRR. Even the NYC fans razz me at the LHS. Even in a "quaint New England Village" railfans have their loyalties, and Rutland seems to be the universal common standard. Who knew? Fred Freitas / Pres New England Chapter / PRRT&HS ----- Original Message -----
From: Richard Hendrickson To: STMFC@... Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Hoppers to and From Canada On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Justin Kahn wrote: > First, to Richard: I am amazed, sir, amazed at such parochialism! How > could > any right-thinking model railroader NOT be fascinated by the Rutland? Jace, I do understand that the Rutland has its die-hard fans, one of them being my good friend Jeff Enlish. And I'll admit the Rutland was...well, quaint. But for those of us who grew up with mainline steam in the west, "quaint" palls quickly. I was raised on a steady diet of Santa Fe 2900s and 2-10-2s, SP GS-4s and cab-forwards, and UP FEFs and Challengers. I was fortunate to witness both Cajon and Tehachapi when the motive power was almost all steam. I once rode the cab of a 2900 4-8-4 from Barstow to Needles, almost 500 tons of locomotive pulling a thirteen car mostly-heavyweight train at 80-100 mph. And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco than anything the Rutland ever owned. I remember years ago writing in a magazine article that the Rutland was "an obscure northeastern short line," a remark that was mainly intended to tweak Jeff E., and got a vitriolic letter from a Rutland devotee questioning my intelligence, parentage, etc. in language I'm sure Mike Brock wouldn't sanction if I repeated it here. Among other things, he claimed that the Rutland was a "serious mountain railroad," which by western standards verges on the comical. The fact is that the Rutland WAS "an obscure northeastern short line." That it had character I'd be the first to admit. That it may have been lovable I will not deny, since beauty is notoriously in the eye of the beholder. And I can certainly understand why modelers for whom coal traffic is a big deal might be interested in coal movements at the Alburgh trestle. But do I find the Rutland fascinating? Uh, sorry, not even close. Richard Hendrickson ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: STMFC-unsubscribe@... c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ |
|
|
|
armprem
Richard, I'll bet you don't even like the Pennsy or the NYC.<g>Armand
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Premo ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 9:04 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Hoppers to and From Canada On Jul 19, 2005, at 12:02 PM, Justin Kahn wrote:First, to Richard: I am amazed, sir, amazed at such parochialism! HowJace, I do understand that the Rutland has its die-hard fans, one of |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Richard Hendrickson wrote:
I'll admit the RutlandThe size issue is one aspect; another is "lovable loser" railroads, which seem to appeal disproportionately to modelers. One could name the O&W in this category; other struggling roads which finally sank beneath the waves despite distinctive style included the WP and the WM. Now I could see attractive reasons to model either of the latter, but not because they were big-time railroads. And let's not even get started on "stuff" like the RGS, which lost its reason for being in the 1893 Sherman Act, before the road was even completed. That has to be an ultimate railroad loser in the business sense--despite its all-world scenery. 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 |
|
|
|
cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
--How
the Rutland?could Ah, but I seem to recall -- way down deep in the memory banks -- seeing a Rutland flatcar with a marble load built by none other than Richard himself. Does that mean the good doctor is, of all things, a "Rutland" modeler???? Marty |
|
|
|
Richard Dermody <ddermody@...>
Richard Hendrickson wrote;
"And for about twenty-five miles I was privliged to sit at the throttle of a Mikado that, though branch line power on the Santa Fe, was more steam loco than anything the Rutland ever owned." Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced in the United States. Admittedly, not the Western behemoths you cite, but more than a trifle better than a Mikado. Dick |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Jul 19, 2005, at 6:46 PM, armand wrote:
Richard, I'll bet you don't even like the Pennsy or the NYC.Armand, let's just say that I think both RRs are over-rated by their admirers. The Pennsy, in particular, peaked early and went steadily downhill after it squandered its capital on electrification, and its much-vaunted mechanical department turned into a painfully bad joke in the later years of the steam era. What can you say in favor of an engineering staff whose only successful steam loco after the M1 was a design they borrowed from the C&O? As for freight cars, the Pennsy's answer to the AAR box car design was the X37? Give me, as we say, a break. NYC did better, staying relatively current in freight car design (though saddled with a vast amount of obsolete rolling stock). But though the last generation of NYC steam locos were well designed, line clearance limitations prevented them from achieving either the performance or the endurance of the larger western locos. Both NYC and PRR were major RRs in terms of traffic volume, but neither were even close to the cutting edge of RR technology and, with few exceptions, their operational practices were still stuck in the 19th century. The Pennsy, in particular, never did understand fast freight or perishable traffic; they tended to treat every shipment as though it were a load of coal. In truth, there aren't many eastern RRs I admire; maybe the Erie and the NKP, which at least understood how to expedite freight traffic because they had to in order to survive. Richard Hendrickson |
|
|
|
Richard Hendrickson
On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:
Richard Hendrickson wrote;Dick, I'll keep this short, as this isn't the steam loco list. I had, indeed, forgotten about the Rutland's 4-8-2s, which were handsome and capable locos for their size (though there were only four of them and they didn't last long). With 73" drivers they were doubtless faster than a typical western Mike but weighed little more and developed considerably less tractive effort. A Santa Fe 2-8-2 built in the mid-1920s would start more train, keep it moving better on grades, run much farther between water stops with its 15K gal. tender, and after modernization with disc main drivers was capable of sustained speeds in the 60s, probably as fast or faster than freight trains ever ran on the Rutland. "More than a trifle better?" I don't think so. |
|
|
|
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Richard Dermody wrote:
Sorry, Richard, but the Rutland also owned the last 4-8-2's ever produced inWant to compare tractive effort, sir? 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 |
|
|
|
armprem
Faster yes,but different terrain.Do you remember that the Rutland once
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
owned ships?(That is until the government scuttled the fleet).This thread is going nowhere.We all enjoy what we saw or experienced ..Armand Premo ----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Hendrickson" <rhendrickson@...> To: <STMFC@...> Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 1:07 AM Subject: Re: [STMFC] RE: Hoppers to and From Canada On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:Richard Hendrickson wrote;Dick, I'll keep this short, as this isn't the steam loco list. I had, |
|
|
|
oliver
--- In STMFC@..., "armand" <armprem@s...> wrote:
This thread is going nowhere. We all enjoy what we saw or experienced.Isn't that the beauty of this hobby? And some of us even enjoy what we didn't experience first hand! Stefan Lerché Duncan, BC (Modelling the SP in mid-1950s California, but surrounded by CPR);-) |
|
|
|
Walter M. Clark
--- In STMFC@..., "stefanelaine" <stefanelaine@y...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "armand" <armprem@s...> wrote:I agree. I grew up watching the very last of SP Black Widow dieselsThis thread is going nowhere. We all enjoy what we saw or experienced.Isn't that the beauty of this hobby? And some of us even enjoy what we and started modeling big time SP diesels. One day I suddenly realized that I'd never have a blimp hanger for a train room and a pre-WW2 shortline with a few steam engines and maybe 50 steam era freight cars would be a whole lot easier to plan (and, I'm still hoping, execute). I still like to watch today's trains, but will be the first to admit they're pretty boring (no cabooses and only about five different models of locomotives). Walter M. Clark Time stopped in November 1941 Riverside, California |
|
|