1. RealSTMFC | Main
  2. Topics

Hoppers to and From Canada

Walter M. Clark
 

--- In STMFC@..., "stefanelaine" <stefanelaine@y...> wrote:
--- 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);-)
I agree. I grew up watching the very last of SP Black Widow diesels
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

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);-)

armprem
 

Faster yes,but different terrain.Do you remember that the Rutland once
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;

"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, 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.




Yahoo! Groups Links









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 7/18/05

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Dermody wrote:
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.
Want 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

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jul 19, 2005, at 9:06 PM, Richard Dermody wrote:

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, 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.

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 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

cvsne <mjmcguirk@...>
 

--How
could
any right-thinking model railroader NOT be fascinated by
the Rutland?

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

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
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.
The 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

armprem
 

Richard, I'll bet you don't even like the Pennsy or the NYC.<g>Armand
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! 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









--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.1/51 - Release Date: 7/18/05

Fred in Vt. <pennsy@...>
 

Rich,

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.


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

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 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

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.



Hey, guys, this thread has been going on for a long time and there
hasn't been a word about the Alburgh trestle recently. The subject
line should have been changed to Montour Hoppers several days ago.
Doesn't matter to me, as I'm not interested either in the Alburgh
trestle or in Montour hoppers, but others on the list have doubtless
been needlessly confused.

Richard Hendrickson
_




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...>
Subject: Re: Canadian open hoppers in USA


Another data point - so far, out of 414 foreign road hoppers at Alburgh
between 1947-1951, not a single one was CN or CP.

Ben Hom
But what about Island Pond, Brownsville, Portland, or White River Jct?
What about Eastport Idaho?




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________



------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links




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



_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar � get it now! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/

1 - 13 of 13