Canadian box cars in the US


ed_mines
 

Thanks for your answers Clark and Tim.

The purpose of my original question was to find out if Canadian box
cars were found in the US in proportion to their total compared to the
US total during the box car shortage.

The period I'm interested in was just after WWII and Canada was our
ally.

Every picture I can recall of Canadian yards or freight trains shows
almost all home road cars, i.e. few if any CP cars in CN trains and
visa versa.

Ed


Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

ed_mines asked:

The purpose of my original question was to find out if Canadian box
cars were found in the US in proportion to their total compared to the
US total during the box car shortage.
Ed,

No.

Tim


rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

Here are a couple more from a different spread sheet. Hope you can read
them ok? They are for small towns west of the Twin Cities (part of them
now!)These show where the lumber originated for opertions guys.

Watertown, MN Waybills Minnesota Western RR 1954

WB Date Intials Number Type From F City,State To
T City,State Route Contents Notes
522-11 20-Dec CN 482306 XM Bellingham Lumber&Shingle Co
Halston BC Lyman Lumber Summit Park MN CN-DWP-GN-MW
fir lumber
540-2 19-Mar CP 267208 XM M.B. King Lumber Savona
BC Fullerton Lumber CP-portal-SOO-MW 2x8
10'&12' #2 fir 33.95 tons


Doug Rhodes
 

I'd like to expand a bit on Ed's perceptive remarks and question. My own experience and researches agree with his comment about the high proportion of home-road cars in Canada.

The model for proportions of "foreign" road boxcars that has been extensively discussed on this list probably does not apply for Canada in the time period under discussion. US boxcars and Canadian "other road" boxcars were seen in Canadian freight trains, but in most cases probably less than the US "proportion of fleet" model would suggest. I know this is a gross generalization, and observations in the east would differ considerably from those in the west, by time of year, etc.

We can speculate why this might be. On the use of home-road cars in Canada, the two big Canadian roads were both truly transcontinental, and their service areas considerably overlapped. As a result, for shipments within Canada one could expect a higher proportion than in the US would see origin and destination both served by the same road. Supporting this inference about reduced interchange requirements is the surprisingly high proportion of Canadian cars in service in the period that were not legal for interchange - for example, something like half of all CPR flat cars still had K brakes well after the cut-off date, so could not be interchanged with other roads (straying a bit from boxcars with that example.)

While Canada and the US were indeed allies in WW2 (though Canada had been at war for a couple of years before the US joined in as one of the allies) the economies of North America were far less integrated in those days than one might expect. For many commercial and industrial relationships, Canada was still more closely tied to the UK. Trade tariffs and other barriers were still fairly strong at the US-Canada border, and much less moved back and forth than would later occur with the Auto Pact, consolidation of production and distribution plants and ultimately the FTA and NAFTA.

That's not to say that Canada-US trade wasn't important at the time, but it does help explain why Canadian cars seemed to be under-represented in the US. CNR and CPR had boxcar fleets, for example, of sizes that would put them amongst some of the biggest of the US roads (PRR, NYC, ATSF, SP, UP) but would have been rather more rarely seen in the US, except at industries regularly receiving Canadian goods such as newsprint or other forest products. The same logic suggests why US boxcars would be relatively rarer in freight trains within Canada (except those in transit between two US points, such as from Chicago or Detroit across southern Ontario to Buffalo, that others have previously mentioned.)

Hope that's helpful, perhaps others have some further insights?

Doug Rhodes

----- Original Message -----
From: ed_mines
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:06 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Canadian box cars in the US


Thanks for your answers Clark and Tim.

The purpose of my original question was to find out if Canadian box
cars were found in the US in proportion to their total compared to the
US total during the box car shortage.

The period I'm interested in was just after WWII and Canada was our
ally.

Every picture I can recall of Canadian yards or freight trains shows
almost all home road cars, i.e. few if any CP cars in CN trains and
visa versa.

Ed


Don Burn <burn@...>
 

On the ratio Canadian box cars what was the ratio on the US subsidiaries, such as the Central Vermont, and the CP operations in New England? Was there a higher percentage on these roads?

Don Burn


Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Doug Rhodes wrote:
The model for proportions of "foreign" road boxcars that has been
extensively discussed on this list probably does not apply for Canada
in the time period under discussion. US boxcars and Canadian "other
road" boxcars were seen in Canadian freight trains, but in most cases
probably less than the US "proportion of fleet" model would suggest.
I know this is a gross generalization, and observations in the east
would differ considerably from those in the west, by time of year,
etc.

We can speculate why this might be.
Hope that's helpful, perhaps others have some further insights?
Repeating myself from several old postings, the Canadian Bureau of
Statistics gathered information about where Canadian originated rail
shipments went and from the reports I have (dated the mid 50's) only 10% of
all such loads were to points in the US. It's probably a safe guess to say
that some portion of that 10% was loaded into US cars returning home but for
simplicity sake, let's say none were. That suggests that at any given time
only 10% of Canadian loaded shipments -- in Canadian cars -- would be seen
in the US and the other 90% remained at home. Offhand I do not recall the
total number of annual rail shipments for either country but that data would
be of use in this conversation.

If those cars were moving to a broad variety of US destinations (a big
assumption) then you could say the expected sightings of Canadian cars in
the US would be noticibly higher on routes leading due south of the border
-- but once the dispersal across the US rail net begins the rate of
sightings should be going way down. If they did not move to a wide variety
of desitnations then the numbers south of the dispersal points would be even
less.

What's not known to me is where are the points of dispersal. Obviously if
one's interests lie north of that point, more Canadian cars makes sense...
and of course the reverse for points to the south.

At any rate, it seems very reasonably to me to draw the conclusion that for
the majority of the US the probability of spotting a Canadian car would be
substantially less than the numbers their fleet would suggest. The data I
have reviewed suggests about 1/8th to 1/10th of what it would be if there
had been no constraints.

Dave Nelson


Tim Gilbert <tgilbert@...>
 

Don Burn wrote:

On the ratio Canadian box cars what was the ratio on the US subsidiaries,
such as the Central Vermont, and the CP operations in New England? Was
there a higher percentage on these roads?
Don,

The closest hard data which may answer your question is an analysis of the last 88 boxcars on the Suncook Valley RR before it was embargoed and abandoned in December 1952. The SunVal was a shortline operating east of Concord NH with about 19 miles of track in 1952.

Inbound boxcar loads included grain for the local chicken farms, salt for the roads, cement and lumber. Outbound boxcars loads included box shooks, box material, woodchips, pulpwood and LCL.

There were 82 inbound boxcar loads and six empties although some of these empties could have carried LCL - for the purpose of this analysis, we will assume them to be empty. Outbound, there were 35 loads and 53 empty boxcars.

The distribution of ownership of the inbound cars were 26 Canadian owned, 58 US owned and Four Unknown. All inbound empties were owned by US RR's.

Outbound, of the 26 Canadian cars, only four were reloaded. The four Unknown cars returned to Concord empty. That leaves 31 US boxcars which carried outbound loads - 25 of them being reloaded on the SunVal. 27 of the US boxcars returned to Concord empty. Only four of the 26 Canadian cars were reloaded while 25 of the 52 inbound US loaded cars were reloaded - conclusion - there was a reluctance on the SunVal to reload Canadian cars.

The distribution of ownership of the 88 boxcars were (the US cars are by ICC Region):

Owners . . . In Lds . . In MT's . Out Lds . . Out MT's . . . Total
Total . . . . . . . 82 . . . . . 6 . . . . . . 35 . . . . . . 53 . . . . . . 88
Unknown . . . . 4 . . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . 4 . . . .. . . . 4
CN . . . . . . . . 11 . .. . . - . . . .. . . . 3 . . . . . . . 8 . . . . . . . 11
CP . . . . . .. . . 14 . . . . .- . . . . .. . . 1 . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . 14
ONT . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . - . . . .. . . . 1
US RR ICC Region
New England . . 1 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . 2 . . . B&M
Great Lakes . . 13 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . . . 14 . . . NYC, ERIE, DL&W, GTW, NKP, etc.
Central East . . . 8 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . 9 . . . PRR, B&O, etc.
Pocahontas . . .. 3 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . C&O, N&W
Southern . . .. . . 9 . . . . - . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 9 . . . ACL, L&N, SAL, SOU
Northwest . . . . 6 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . C&NW, GN, NP, MILW
Central West . . 5 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . 2 . . . ATSF, SP, UP
Southwest . . . . 7 . . . . - . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . .. . 4 . . . . . . . . 7 . . . MP, SLSF, T&NO

Tim Gilbert


mjmcguirk@...
 

Don Burn wrote:

On the ratio Canadian box cars what was the ratio on the US subsidiaries,
such as the Central Vermont, and the CP operations in New England? Was
there a higher percentage on these roads?
Based on photo evidence (I've got one or two pictures of CV trains) there was a noticeable percentage of CN cars on the CV in the 1950s -- especially on CV train 430 from Montreal to New London. These were primarily used to haul newsprint (no. 430 was called the "Newsboy" for good reason) --

I'm not sure if this would translate to a some sort of system-wide percentage -- but I do know the CV did not have a huge roster of home road cars (and a CV boxcar showing up in a CV train, while not impossible, is certainly different enough to stick out) -- (thankfully) blowing that old "home road should be 50% of the roster" model railroady rule all to heck . . .

I also know that we should be looking to model the appearance of the trains, not trying to nail down some percentage with the hope that will translate onto our layouts as the right look for the trains. Therefore, a model of CV Train 430 should have a noticeably large percentage of CN boxcars -- just as a model of Train 490, which was a Chicago-New London routing via the CN -- should have a noticeable block of reefers on the head end.

That to me is far more effective than trying to tie the percentage of cars on our model railroads to a national, regional, or local percentage.

Marty McGuirk


armprem
 

While this was not CV, on 12/18/1950 there were ten CN box cars out of a total of fifty thee cars on Rutland train #9.All were loads.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: <mjmcguirk@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Cc: "Tim Gilbert" <tgilbert@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Canadian box cars in the US


Don Burn wrote:

On the ratio Canadian box cars what was the ratio on the US subsidiaries,
such as the Central Vermont, and the CP operations in New England? Was
there a higher percentage on these roads?
Based on photo evidence (I've got one or two pictures of CV trains) there was a noticeable percentage of CN cars on the CV in the 1950s -- especially on CV train 430 from Montreal to New London. These were primarily used to haul newsprint (no. 430 was called the "Newsboy" for good reason) --

I'm not sure if this would translate to a some sort of system-wide percentage -- but I do know the CV did not have a huge roster of home road cars (and a CV boxcar showing up in a CV train, while not impossible, is certainly different enough to stick out) -- (thankfully) blowing that old "home road should be 50% of the roster" model railroady rule all to heck . . .

I also know that we should be looking to model the appearance of the trains, not trying to nail down some percentage with the hope that will translate onto our layouts as the right look for the trains. Therefore, a model of CV Train 430 should have a noticeably large percentage of CN boxcars -- just as a model of Train 490, which was a Chicago-New London routing via the CN -- should have a noticeable block of reefers on the head end.

That to me is far more effective than trying to tie the percentage of cars on our model railroads to a national, regional, or local percentage.

Marty McGuirk





Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 10:02 AM


Greg Martin
 

I like what Marty's saying here. I think one should focus on the "appearance" based on you area of the railroad you model. You should think of what types of industries your area/era represents and think in terms of what inbounds/out bounds you need to represent. (avoid reloading Canadian cars) If you have no produce houses/warehouses ask yourself why have so many other than those that cycle through on through trains, the same fits for several kinds of cars. Why have a flat car(s) of lumber on those RC SP flats if you don't have a lumber yard, especially one that bought/sold green/dry Douglas Fir, Hemlock or Western Red Cedar or Redwood. Certainly, a car load of Eastern Canadian SPF would rarely if ever show up in SOuthern California or Southern Yellow Pine... There was no market for those products there (and still is little or none), but the eastern seaboard is a different story, but western species were/are very common. Think in terms of eastern coal... Steel is another story especially during the mid to late 50s, think of those bridges being built during the bustling Interstate Highway years... Marty, I think, has it right. Don't base all your modeling on percentages. But I do have a nice photo of a PRR G25 gondola being loaded with heavy timbers somewhere here in the PNW taken by the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau company photographer... maybe those nasty guys on the SP&S (OE) who stole all those cars and got themselves in trouble with the AAR... 3^)

Greg Martin

Marty McGuirk writes:



I also know that we should be looking to model the appearance of the trains, not trying to nail down some percentage with the hope that will translate onto our layouts as the right look for the trains.
Marty McGuirk<


.
_I like Marty's thinking here _,_._,___
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


armprem
 

----- Original Message -----
From: <tgregmrtn@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:18 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Canadian box cars in the US


I like what Marty's saying here. I think one should focus on the "appearance" based on you area of the railroad you model. You should think of what types of industries your area/era represents and think in terms of what inbounds/out bounds you need to represent. (avoid reloading Canadian cars) If you have no produce houses/warehouses ask yourself why have so many other than those that cycle through on through trains, the same fits for several kinds of cars. Why have a flat car(s) of lumber on those RC SP flats if you don't have a lumber yard, especially one that bought/sold green/dry Douglas Fir, Hemlock or Western Red Cedar or Redwood. Certainly, a car load of Eastern Canadian SPF would rarely if ever show up in SOuthern California or Southern Yellow Pine... There was no market for those products there (and still is little or none), but the eastern seaboard is a different story, but western species were/are very common. Think in terms of eastern coal... Steel is another stor
y especially during the mid to late 50s, think of those bridges being built during the bustling Interstate Highway years... Marty, I think, has it right. Don't base all your modeling on percentages. But I do have a nice photo of a PRR G25 gondola being loaded with heavy timbers somewhere here in the PNW taken by the West Coast Lumber Inspection Bureau company photographer... maybe those nasty guys on the SP&S (OE) who stole all those cars and got themselves in trouble with the AAR... 3^)

Greg Martin

Marty McGuirk writes:



I also know that we should be looking to model the appearance of the trains, not trying to nail down some percentage with the hope that will translate onto our layouts as the right look for the trains.
Marty McGuirk<


.
_I like Marty's thinking here _,_._,___
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.






Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.20/588 - Release Date: 12/15/2006 10:02 AM


Jerry Dziedzic
 

Roger that.

Marty's observation calls to mind RW-6, the "paper train" on D&H with
its head end Canadian signature. Tim Gilbert's Suncook Valley
analysis is interesting to me, and informative.

My vote goes for combining the appearance approach with the
percentage approach. Use percentage for the backdrop and detail the
scene with appearance.

Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@..., tgregmrtn@... wrote:

I like what Marty's saying here. I think one should focus on
the "appearance" based on you area of the railroad you model. You
should think of what types of industries your area/era represents and
think in terms of what inbounds/out bounds you need to represent.

Marty McGuirk writes:

I also know that we should be looking to model the appearance of
the trains, not trying to nail down some percentage with the hope
that will translate onto our layouts as the right look for the
trains.
Marty McGuirk<
______________________________________________________________________
__
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.


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


Malcolm Laughlin <mlaughlinnyc@...>
 

There were 10 to 20 CN cars going down NYC's Hudson Division every day, paper for the New York Times.


Malcolm Laughlin, Editor 617-489-4383
New England Rail Shipper Directories
19 Holden Road, Belmont, MA 02478


al_brown03
 

It means "eh?"

Happy New Year everyone. See y'all in Cocoa Beach. :-)

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.



--- In STMFC@..., "pullmanboss" <tgmadden@...> wrote:

Greg Martin wrote:
..........and got themselves in trouble with the AAR... 3^)
Pardon my obtuseness here, but just what does that emoticon at the
end
of Greg's message mean? All I see is a sideways representation of
someone passing gas.

Tom Madden