Freight car Distribution


armand_premo <armprem0@...>
 

Over the years many fine models have been produced,but some roads have been under represented.While we are striving to achieve a degree of reality many of these roads should be present on each roster.for example:EJ&E,TH&B,B&A,PE,DTI.B&LE I am sure that there are many more.


Ned Carey <nedspam@...>
 

Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.

Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey


A. Premo <armprem0@...>
 

I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study to just box cars the results could be much different. Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Carey
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution



Rmand P wrote:
>but some roads have been under represented.

Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey








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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 18:32:00


Tim O'Connor
 

DT&I had 4,201 freight cars in 1950; over 1/2 were box cars.
Compare with, say, the MKT which had about 6,000 box cars in
1950. Of course DT&I box cars were used more for manufactured
goods while MKT's were used more for farm products.

The B&LE had about 1/2 as many box cars as the DT&I, and most
of them belonged to one large block 91001-91800.

So in simple proportions you have MKT 6, DT&I 2, B&LE 1. So if
you start with the 1 B&LE car (was planned to be a Speedwitch
kit), then adjust your fleet accordingly... Assuming you have
room for 500 or so box cars...

http://www.speedwitch.com/Models/k112.htm

Tim O'Connor

At 4/10/2010 12:04 PM Saturday, you wrote:
Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.

Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey


Benjamin Hom
 

Armand Premo wrote:
"I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory. I
trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory. Based on
primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study
to just box cars the results could be much different."

Not sure what you mean here, Armand:

- Primary sources? The UP and Southern conductor's books used by Dave and Tim weren't primary enough? What do you mean exactly?

- Larger sample size would be great; however, lacking more conductor's books and train records for given stretches of railroad, I'm not sure that you could get there.

- Restricting the study to box cars and flat cars was the whole point! The intent was to come up with a better model for general service cars. If you include more specialized cars such as hoppers, OF COURSE the results would be different.

It's not heresy to challenge Tim and Dave's work; however, lets not ruin a good methodology with a flawed one just for the sake of coming up with different results. There's enough bogus thinking out there already.


Ben Hom


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study to just box cars the results could be much different.
Of course it's not heresy, and I know Armand has had trouble accepting the G-N idea for some years. Larger sample, primary sources--
great, please provide those sources. It would indeed be great to have similar analyses for other car types like hoppers and gondolas, but Tim and Dave haven't gone there. Anyone?

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


Dan Sweeney Jr
 

List,
Would the ORER be considered a primary source? If so, an eager volunteer could reference the tallies of all freight cars (or by type) for each railroad and compute the percentage of total (railroad-owned/leased) freight cars. My oldest ORER is January 1958, so maybe that's not old enough for what folks need?

Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:

Armand Premo wrote:
I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I
trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on
primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the
study to just box cars the results could be much different.
Of course it's not heresy, and I know Armand has had trouble
accepting the G-N idea for some years. Larger sample, primary sources--
great, please provide those sources. It would indeed be great to have
similar analyses for other car types like hoppers and gondolas, but
Tim and Dave haven't gone there. Anyone?

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


Tim O'Connor
 

Dan, please consult the STMFC archives. There are literally
HUNDREDS of posts on freight car distribution, many of them
meticulously researched by Tim Gilbert and many others. Also
Larry Ostresh has posted dozens of lists of fleet comparisons
for single and double sheathed box cars, which immediately
becomes an important issue if you want to represent not only
a railroad, but that PARTICULAR railroad's mix of box cars.

If you want to do a straight line percentage apportionment of
box cars, then an ORER is exactly the right (blunt) tool. But
then your layout may resemble an ORER and not a prototype.

Tim O'Connor

Would the ORER be considered a primary source? If so, an eager volunteer could reference the tallies of all freight cars (or by type) for each railroad and compute the percentage of total (railroad-owned/leased) freight cars. My oldest ORER is January 1958, so maybe that's not old enough for what folks need?
Dan Sweeney, Jr.


Armand Premo
 

Tony,I brought a rather large amount of material to Cocoa Beach in January.Unfortunately circumstances did not allow me to share this material.It might be a good idea to restate the basis of the G/N findings.If we are to restrict the study to only box cars then I suggest that Canadian cars should also be included as they were major players in the northeast.It is not my intent to discount the valuable information of the G/N study,but to expand upon on their findings.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: Anthony Thompson
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:08 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution



Armand Premo wrote:
> I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I
> trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on
> primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the
> study to just box cars the results could be much different.

Of course it's not heresy, and I know Armand has had trouble
accepting the G-N idea for some years. Larger sample, primary sources--
great, please provide those sources. It would indeed be great to have
similar analyses for other car types like hoppers and gondolas, but
Tim and Dave haven't gone there. Anyone?

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






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



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2803 - Release Date: 04/10/10 18:32:00


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Armand Premo wrote:
It might be a good idea to restate the basis of the G/N findings.If we are to restrict the study to only box cars then I suggest that Canadian cars should also be included as they were major players in the northeast.It is not my intent to discount the valuable information of the G/N study,but to expand upon on their findings.
The G-N hypothesis was only formulated to address free- running freight cars. In the steam era, box cars were the supreme example, followed by gondolas and flat cars. Most other car types were NOT free running in most situations, thus the G-N idea could not apply. Since IIRC Tim and Dave did analyze flat cars, that kind of leaves gondolas as the only unexplored type. Anyone wants to step up on that, you'll find considerable interest on this list in your results. And anyone who does the work to look at NON-free-running cars would no doubt also find interesting results, presumably NOT fitting the G-N hypothesis.
No doubt Canadian cars were significant players in some regions of the U.S. We would need good data from those regions to say more.

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


Dan Sweeney Jr
 

Tim, agreed, but it seems that Armand was lobbying for a "larger sample" than perhaps had been done in the past.

Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:


Dan, please consult the STMFC archives. There are literally
HUNDREDS of posts on freight car distribution, many of them
meticulously researched by Tim Gilbert and many others. Also
Larry Ostresh has posted dozens of lists of fleet comparisons
for single and double sheathed box cars, which immediately
becomes an important issue if you want to represent not only
a railroad, but that PARTICULAR railroad's mix of box cars.

If you want to do a straight line percentage apportionment of
box cars, then an ORER is exactly the right (blunt) tool. But
then your layout may resemble an ORER and not a prototype.

Tim O'Connor


Would the ORER be considered a primary source? If so, an eager volunteer could reference the tallies of all freight cars (or by type) for each railroad and compute the percentage of total (railroad-owned/leased) freight cars. My oldest ORER is January 1958, so maybe that's not old enough for what folks need?
Dan Sweeney, Jr.


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 10, 2010, at 2:49 PM, benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

Armand Premo wrote:
"I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory. I
trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory. Based on
primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study
to just box cars the results could be much different."

Not sure what you mean here, Armand:

- Primary sources? The UP and Southern conductor's books used by
Dave and Tim weren't primary enough? What do you mean exactly?

- Larger sample size would be great; however, lacking more
conductor's books and train records for given stretches of
railroad, I'm not sure that you could get there.

- Restricting the study to box cars and flat cars was the whole
point! The intent was to come up with a better model for general
service cars. If you include more specialized cars such as
hoppers, OF COURSE the results would be different.

It's not heresy to challenge Tim and Dave's work; however, lets not
ruin a good methodology with a flawed one just for the sake of
coming up with different results. There's enough bogus thinking
out there already.
I agree with Ben and others who think the Gilbert-Nelson theory is
the best approximation we have at present. More data might indeed
give us different results, but where do we find the data?

However.... It's often the case that specialized shipments on a
particular line skewed the numbers, and sometimes skewed them a whole
lot. So modelers need to be mindful of the traffic that ran on the
particular section of railroad they're modeling, and not just
slavishly follow the G-N numbers. Let me cite a couple of examples.

In traffic handed off between the GN and WP at Bieber, CA on the high
line in the late 1940s, there are many more double door box cars with
auto racks (a lot of them Santa Fe cars) than the G-N theory would
account for. The reason for that isn't far to seek; many (perhaps
most) new motor vehicles sold in the Pacific Northwest were built at
satellite assembly plants in Southern and Central California and
shipped north in automobile box cars. Many of these appear to have
been in assigned service, judging from the frequency with which the
same cars turned up repeatedly either going (loaded) or returning
(empty) in the Bieber interchange book. The Santa Fe, on which much
of that traffic originated, shipped it via the WP-GN whenever
possible, rather than turning it over to arch-rival Southern Pacific.

When I was a youth in Southern California watching Santa Fe trains
come into the Los Angeles area from the east, I thought the Akron,
Canton & Youngstown had to be a sizable railroad, to judge from the
number of AC&Y box cars I saw. It wasn't until much later that I
discovered how small the AC&Y's freight car fleet was, and figured
out that the reason I kept seeing their cars in Los Angeles was that
they were carrying tires from the Ohio tire manufacturers served by
the AC&Y to the auto assembly plants in the LA area. Similarly, I
saw more New Haven box cars in Santa Fe trains than the G-N theory
would lead one to expect, because the New Haven served Pratt &
Whitney, whose aircraft engines and parts were at that time shipped
in a steady stream to the many aircraft manufacturers and military
aviation installations in Southern California.

If you're trying to build a plausible model freight car fleet to run
on a particular line at a particular time - which is what I assume
most STMFC members are doing - generalizations about the national
freight car fleet as a whole are certainly useful, but a whole lot of
variables might result in certain cars being present in larger
numbers than the national average and others never, or hardly ever,
appearing there. It's not clear to me why we have to keep rehashing
this. Or why, yet again, we'll have someone respond, inevitably, to
the discussion by saying "it's my model railroad and I'll run
whatever cars I damn please."

Richard Hendrickson


Brian Carlson
 

I told myself all day, I was wasn't going to get drawn into this subject.
However, I have to point out the ORER data tells us nothing about
distribution. It a big hardcopy database of useful information but not for
distribution. Armand has a lot of primary information, and Armand correct
me if I am wrong as I am going on memory from our conversations from awhile
back, on the Rutland. That information shed a lot of light on the various
movements on that road and the results didn't exactly mesh with the N-G.
Therefore in Armand's case, the N-G model shouldn't be applied to his
layout.



I would love more primary source material for my lines (Erie Meadville -
Salamanca, and PRR Erie - Renovo, but I have not unearthed wheel reports or
conductors books for 1957 so I am basing my boxcar population on the N-G
model. My conclusion with respect to the N-G model, which I mentioned in my
talk at Cocoa Beach a few years back, was that in the absence of specific
primary source data, the N-G model is a reasonable method to distribute the
boxcar population on a mainline trunk line railroad.



Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

prrk41361@yahoo.com



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
potomacyard
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 8:58 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution





Tim, agreed, but it seems that Armand was lobbying for a "larger sample"
than perhaps had been done in the past.

Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com> , Tim O'Connor
<timboconnor@...> wrote:


Dan, please consult the STMFC archives. There are literally
HUNDREDS of posts on freight car distribution, many of them
meticulously researched by Tim Gilbert and many others. Also
Larry Ostresh has posted dozens of lists of fleet comparisons
for single and double sheathed box cars, which immediately
becomes an important issue if you want to represent not only
a railroad, but that PARTICULAR railroad's mix of box cars.

If you want to do a straight line percentage apportionment of
box cars, then an ORER is exactly the right (blunt) tool. But
then your layout may resemble an ORER and not a prototype.

Tim O'Connor


Jerry Dziedzic
 

I hate to rekindle a dormant debate, but I'm in favor of revisitng the Gilbert and Nelson work on general service cars.

I don't challenge the methodology or the conclusions of their original work. But, the limitation is in exactly what Ben has noted: a sample confined to UP and Southern conductor's books.

I'm certain that many more sources of primary data have been uncovered than we knew to exist only a few years ago. I have some in my own collection. I haven't analyzed it rigorously, but it's apparent that it doesn't follow the same trends that Gilbert and Nelson found in the UP and Southern data.

The question should be: Would the Gilbert and Nelson conclusions hold up under the weight of additional data, or not?



Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "benjaminfrank_hom" <b.hom@...> wrote:

Armand Premo wrote:
"I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory. I
trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory. Based on
primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study
to just box cars the results could be much different."

Not sure what you mean here, Armand:

- Primary sources? The UP and Southern conductor's books used by Dave and Tim weren't primary enough? What do you mean exactly?

- Larger sample size would be great; however, lacking more conductor's books and train records for given stretches of railroad, I'm not sure that you could get there.

- Restricting the study to box cars and flat cars was the whole point! The intent was to come up with a better model for general service cars. If you include more specialized cars such as hoppers, OF COURSE the results would be different.

It's not heresy to challenge Tim and Dave's work; however, lets not ruin a good methodology with a flawed one just for the sake of coming up with different results. There's enough bogus thinking out there already.


Ben Hom


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Brian Carlson wrote:
My conclusion with respect to the N-G model, which I mentioned in my talk at Cocoa Beach a few years back, was that in the absence of specific primary source data, the N-G model is a reasonable method to distribute the boxcar population on a mainline trunk line railroad.
Well stated, Brian, and in my opinion the burden of proof of an opinion to the contrary is on anyone who disagrees WITHOUT specific data.

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


Jim Gates
 

I actually went through a 1940 and a 1950 ORER and entered the totals by railroad/owner and AAR type in Excel spreadsheets. I can post them to the files page if anyone is interested.

Jim Gates




________________________________
From: potomacyard <dlsweeney@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 10, 2010 7:16:08 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution


List,
Would the ORER be considered a primary source? If so, an eager volunteer could reference the tallies of all freight cars (or by type) for each railroad and compute the percentage of total (railroad-owned/ leased) freight cars. My oldest ORER is January 1958, so maybe that's not old enough for what folks need?

Dan Sweeney, Jr.
Alexandria, VA

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups. com, Anthony Thompson <thompson@.. .> wrote:

Armand Premo wrote:
I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I
trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on
primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the
study to just box cars the results could be much different.
Of course it's not heresy, and I know Armand has had trouble
accepting the G-N idea for some years. Larger sample, primary sources--
great, please provide those sources. It would indeed be great to have
similar analyses for other car types like hoppers and gondolas, but
Tim and Dave haven't gone there. Anyone?

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






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


Tim O'Connor
 

Jerry, I think I pointed out before that a very reasonable
approach is simply software simulation that makes car assignments
based on the AAR rules laid down in every ORER. Take an imaginary
fleet of 1,000 box cars with say, 300 of them home road, and then
program in your loads out and loads in to your 'system' and your
destination points (interchanges etc) and let the rules work their
magic. Years ago I wrote switchlist software that did this and
generated train movements, and I ran it hundreds of times observing
train consists. Over time you notice regular patterns but also a
regular occurence of unusual events (like 4 produce reefers sent up
on a branchline local, that occurred once out of scores of trips)
And if your imaginary fleet begins with an "ORER apportionment" by
prototype ownership numbers, then the observations you see will
either support or refute the G-N thesis.

Notice that all simulations of all railroads could start with the
same "imaginary fleet". But the RESULTS for each railroad could be
quite different, because of the loads in/loads out, and connections
(and region of the country).

Anyway, absent data, IMO the only way to operate realistically is
to operate statistically (randomness & rules) and to avoid tedium,
to use switchlist software that embodies it.

Tim O'Connor

I hate to rekindle a dormant debate, but I'm in favor of revisitng the Gilbert and Nelson work on general service cars.

I don't challenge the methodology or the conclusions of their original work. But, the limitation is in exactly what Ben has noted: a sample confined to UP and Southern conductor's books.

I'm certain that many more sources of primary data have been uncovered than we knew to exist only a few years ago. I have some in my own collection. I haven't analyzed it rigorously, but it's apparent that it doesn't follow the same trends that Gilbert and Nelson found in the UP and Southern data.

The question should be: Would the Gilbert and Nelson conclusions hold up under the weight of additional data, or not?

Jerry Dziedzic
Pattenburg, NJ


Allen Rueter
 

EJ&E, DTI, BLE cars show up going through Bieber, CA, but not many.

I estimate at < .5%
--
Allen Rueter
StLouis MO




________________________________
From: Ned Carey <nedspam@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sat, April 10, 2010 11:04:25 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution


Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.
Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey

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







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


Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton <smokeandsteam@...>
 

The question should be: Would the Gilbert and Nelson conclusions hold up under the weight of additional data, or not?<<
Well, until someone finds analyses and presents that information, any
answer is going to be purely speculative and probably not very
helpful.

I think Tim Gilbert would have been among the first to agree that this
model was not the final word, but that it was the best model he could
find that agreed with the data theat he had available No one else has
yet dealt with the subject in the same rigorous way.

A bigger sample might tell us some things that support the G-N
theories and some that do not - we are after all dealing with
statistics, which means that there will be plenty of real life
variations from the theoretical model. Until further records are
unearthed and the analysis is done, the model we have is likely to
remain the best available for some time.

However any larger sample needs to be found before it can be analysed.
If anyone can add meanigful data - that is to say conductors' books
from other places and other railroads, then that would certainly help
refine the model.

Is it worth reworking the numbers hased on one additional wheel report
from one train? Probaly not, but if anyone can add a meaningful amount
of new data the same methods can be applied and new conculsians drawn
or old ones strengthened

Regards

Marge Ynaverra
Personal freight car statistician to Mr Bridgeman-Sutton


Aley, Jeff A
 

Armand,

It is not heresy to challenge the Gilbert-Nelson theory.

Of course the usual STMFC rules apply (no personal attacks, etc.).

Regards,

-Jeff Aley
Deputy Moderator, STMFC


From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of A. Premo
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 1:52 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution



I think it is past time that we revisit the Gilbert-Nelson theory.I trust that it is not heresy to challenge their theory.Based on primary sources , using a larger sample and not restricting the study to just box cars the results could be much different. Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: Ned Carey
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 10, 2010 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Freight car Distribution

Rmand P wrote:
but some roads have been under represented.
Here are the % of boxcar fleet in 1949 from Tim Gilberts chart in the files section
EJ&E, .2%
TH&B, not on list
B&A, not on list
PE, not on list
DTI. not on list
B&LE .1% (1954)

Ned Carey



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

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2799 - Release Date: 04/08/10 18:32:00