Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Since I decided to listen [ well...read ] for a change before engaging my typing fingers regarding frt car distribution, I have managed to acquire a good bit of recent opinion about this subject...perhaps as much as 10 per cent of that written. Having wasted countless numbers of words on this subject over the past 7 or 8 yrs I think I'll try a somewhat different approach.

It seems to me that there are at least two issues...perhaps in conflict. We have [ I think ] an ICC September report which [ as I understand it ] gives the numbers of frt cars [ hopefully by class ] of foreign RRs on a given RR. I have a feeling that my description of this document is incorrect so I'd like someone [ hopefully Dave Nelson ] to explain it and the analysis of it. Second, we have frt conductor books which give actual frt train consists for various lines of real RR's. Since I have two of these, I understand what they show. Before going further, I'll wait and see exactly what the ICC report provides.

Thanks.

Mike Brock


Aley, Jeff A
 

Mike,

The report I have (a spreadsheet that I believe is from Tim Gilbert), shows the following (among other things):

Roadname, # of boxcars, # of boxcars at home, # of boxcars away, % of national away boxcar fleet.

For example,
UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was 5.02%.

Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting for regional bias, etc.).

Similarly,
PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279 were away. These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet.

Thus, a UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting for regional bias, etc.).

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Mike Brock
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 5:02 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



Since I decided to listen [ well...read ] for a change before engaging my
typing fingers regarding frt car distribution, I have managed to acquire a
good bit of recent opinion about this subject...perhaps as much as 10 per
cent of that written. Having wasted countless numbers of words on this
subject over the past 7 or 8 yrs I think I'll try a somewhat different
approach.

It seems to me that there are at least two issues...perhaps in conflict. We
have [ I think ] an ICC September report which [ as I understand it ] gives
the numbers of frt cars [ hopefully by class ] of foreign RRs on a given RR.
I have a feeling that my description of this document is incorrect so I'd
like someone [ hopefully Dave Nelson ] to explain it and the analysis of it.
Second, we have frt conductor books which give actual frt train consists for
various lines of real RR's. Since I have two of these, I understand what
they show. Before going further, I'll wait and see exactly what the ICC
report provides.

Thanks.

Mike Brock


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jeff Aley says:

The report I have (a spreadsheet that I believe is from Tim Gilbert), shows the following (among other things):

Roadname, # of boxcars, # of boxcars at home, # of boxcars away, % of national away boxcar fleet.

For example,
UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was 5.02%.
OK. So you are saying that 5.02% of the "away" box cars were UP.

Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting for regional bias, etc.).
From what you are saying...and you may have more to add...I don't see why. We know that the "away" UP box cars are "away". We know how many there are. Unless the report shows something more, we don't know where they are. They could all be on the FEC for all the report shows. Did any part of the report indicate that the away cars had to be distributed on each other RR according to their % of the national average? I'm not disputing anyone's proposal or theory...just trying to determine exactly what the report said.

Similarly,
PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279 were away. These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet.
Noooo problem.

Thus, a UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting for regional bias, etc.).
Again...why? Couldn't more PRR "away" cars than their % of the national population be found on the B&O and C&O, thus reducing their numbers on the UP...as far as the report says.

Mike Brock


Bruce Smith
 

Jeff Aley says:
Thus, a UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).
Mike replied
Again...why? Couldn't more PRR "away" cars than their % of the national
population be found on the B&O and C&O, thus reducing their numbers on the
UP...as far as the report says.
Arrrrgh! I can't take this anymore! Like Mike, I've been trying hard not to jump in, yet again, but... well...

First, Mike, isn't that exactly what Jeff implied, by inserting that business about "after accounting for regional bias" <G>.

Second, "regional bias" is just another name for the old modeler- driven paradigm that the NG hypothesis was meant to refute. It is NOT part of the hypothesis.

Third, statistically speaking, it is possible, but incredibly unlikely that on April 13, 1953, ALL away PRR boxcars were on the UP. Thus any discussion of where any cars were at any given time has to be tempered by the inclusion of TIME and the concept of averaging and the realization that any one instant in time would likely NOT reflect that average. Thus, on AVERAGE, over some period of time (months), one might expect that between 14% and 15% of the foreign boxcars on any given railroad (except the PRR) would be PRR cars (and that these would statistically break down into car classes based on the number of cars in each class). Since Mike models one day in time, that particular day need not represent a precise "snapshot" of the US car fleet, although barring other information, that would be a good place to start. Since I model one month, and not a particular day, then, based on the NG hypothesis, my "fleet" (the cars that will be seen over the course of that month) should represent the national fleet. That DOES NOT mean that each operating session will precisely mimic the national numbers (and certainly NOT each train), because there will be randomness to the car assignments, but, over the course of many operating sessions, a pattern will emerge that will resemble that seen on the real PRR at the time I model and that my operators will get the "feel" that some foreign cars were more common than others.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


SUVCWORR@...
 

Mike,

If this report is the same or similar to ones I have seen, the data is based on per diem reports. At least that is my understanding. The raw data would be very interesting as it would show the number and type of car of every road on every other road at midnight on one particular day.

Rich Orr

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Brock <brockm@...>
To: STMFC@...
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2010 8:02 pm
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report


Since I decided to listen [ well...read ] for a change before engaging my
typing fingers regarding frt car distribution, I have managed to acquire a
good bit of recent opinion about this subject...perhaps as much as 10 per
cent of that written. Having wasted countless numbers of words on this
subject over the past 7 or 8 yrs I think I'll try a somewhat different
approach.

It seems to me that there are at least two issues...perhaps in conflict. We
have [ I think ] an ICC September report which [ as I understand it ] gives
the numbers of frt cars [ hopefully by class ] of foreign RRs on a given RR.
I have a feeling that my description of this document is incorrect so I'd
like someone [ hopefully Dave Nelson ] to explain it and the analysis of it.
Second, we have frt conductor books which give actual frt train consists for
various lines of real RR's. Since I have two of these, I understand what
they show. Before going further, I'll wait and see exactly what the ICC
report provides.

Thanks.

Mike Brock



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Aley, Jeff A
 

Mike,

You are correct: I was applying the data in the report to the G-N model.

All the report says is that the cars are "away"; it does not indicate where they are. The UP modeler can be assured that between 0 and 57,279 PRR box cars were on the UP at the time of the report.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Mike Brock
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 7:21 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



Jeff Aley says:

The report I have (a spreadsheet that I believe is from Tim
Gilbert), shows the following (among other things):

Roadname, # of boxcars, # of boxcars at home, # of boxcars away, % of
national away boxcar fleet.

For example,
UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were
away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was
5.02%.
OK. So you are saying that 5.02% of the "away" box cars were UP.

Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).
From what you are saying...and you may have more to add...I don't see why.
We know that the "away" UP box cars are "away". We know how many there are.
Unless the report shows something more, we don't know where they are. They
could all be on the FEC for all the report shows. Did any part of the report
indicate that the away cars had to be distributed on each other RR according
to their % of the national average? I'm not disputing anyone's proposal or
theory...just trying to determine exactly what the report said.

Similarly,
PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279 were away.
These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet.
Noooo problem.

Thus, a UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).
Again...why? Couldn't more PRR "away" cars than their % of the national
population be found on the B&O and C&O, thus reducing their numbers on the
UP...as far as the report says.

Mike Brock


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Bruce Smith says:

Arrrrgh! I can't take this anymore! Like Mike, I've been trying
hard not to jump in, yet again, but... well...

First, Mike, isn't that exactly what Jeff implied, by inserting that
business about "after accounting for regional bias" <G>.
Not necessarily. The "regional bias" has not...IMO...been completely defined. For example, Larry Ostresh's UP frt conductor books show WP to be way over represented in 1938. OTOH, my 1949 Fraley shows WP to be very under represented. My impression was that this was because WP was somewhat more of a competitor than an extension as in the SP case. So, why the difference between 1938 and 1949? Who knows.

Second, "regional bias" is just another name for the old modeler-
driven paradigm that the NG hypothesis was meant to refute. It is
NOT part of the hypothesis.
I'll pass for now.

Third, statistically speaking, it is possible, but incredibly
unlikely that on April 13, 1953, ALL away PRR boxcars were on the
UP.
For sure. Imagine the cfoncern if they all showed up on the FEC <G>. Imagine Tony Koester's concern if they all showed up on the NKP<G>.

Thus any discussion of where any cars were at any given time has
to be tempered by the inclusion of TIME and the concept of averaging
and the realization that any one instant in time would likely NOT
reflect that average.
Now we get to the point. I was asking for information that was actually in the report as opposed to the analysis of it.

Thus, on AVERAGE, over some period of time
(months), one might expect that between 14% and 15% of the foreign
boxcars on any given railroad (except the PRR) would be PRR cars (and
that these would statistically break down into car classes based on
the number of cars in each class).
I would argue that this is true IF the appearance of foreign cars on a given RR is random. What if it was not? And, if not, what drove any bias? It might have been so insignificant that the G-N concept still applies. Or, it might HAVE been significant and the case of UP/SP applies. The number of SP box cars in every data sample [ frt conductor books ] so far analyzed is so much larger than the G-N expectation that there appears to be a bias. It seems to me that we have the G-N hypothesis and we are testing it with actual data. If we aren't going to concern ourselves with the results of the tests...why bother with looking at real data...frt conductor books?

Since Mike models one day in
time, that particular day need not represent a precise "snapshot" of
the US car fleet, although barring other information, that would be a
good place to start.
Actually I lied. I do only an eighth of a day...3 hrs. Although, to be honest, this can be any of the mornings in May, 1954.

Since I model one month, and not a particular
day, then, based on the NG hypothesis, my "fleet" (the cars that will
be seen over the course of that month) should represent the national
fleet.
And it may well be that during that month the area Bruce models might have indeed seen a box car population matching the national fleet. Regretfully, however, we likely will never know...at least until a friend of mine improves his time machine. Even then I doubt that this will help because I have reserved it for trips to Mecca [ Cheyenne ] [ it only operates for 3 hr periods before sending one back to the present ] and for some reason it appears to fog over film or video. I'll also note that we were getting some strange looks from other rail fans on the last trip because of our video cameras. I'll bet they really had to wonder when we disappeared right before their eyes.

So, we appear to have an hypothesis that solidified proposals [ see the May '92 MM ] that foreign box cars were very common on a given RR. Testing against real data seems to indicate that the hypothesis is relatively correct...although differences exist, particularly with regard to "special" circumstances in which a RR operates with a connecting RR just as if it were part of the RR as far as traffic is concerned [ UP/SP ]. Frt conductor books give us very small samples of the data [ the ICC report ] and from these we must be careful not to jump too far in reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, such books do contain real data and, even better, they give us data we can use for modeling and operating models of real trains [ for those fortunate enough to have such books that are associated with one's area to be modeled ]. I should point out that frt conductor books also reveal the important aspect of frt train "design". One thing that jumps out from my 1949 Fraley book is the number of frt trains that appear to be based/constructed for specific tasks. Hence, there are tank car trains, lumber trains, coal trains, PFE reefer trains, ore [ bauxite ] trains [ all box cars, BTW ], stock trains and MTY trains. Some of these are combined. Mixed into this are what one might call merchandise trains. These last trains might more closely match the G-N hypothesis. So, one has the task of developing a "fleet" of frt cars [ which the G-N helps with ] and then individual frt trains [ which frt conductor books are invaluable ]. Or, one just does what they wish.

Mike Brock


Aley, Jeff A
 

Bruce,

My recollection of the G-N model is that it DOES account for regional bias. It will be difficult for us to educate each other if we are each talking about a different "G-N model"!

If you have the time, please point out to us which STMFC message contains the G-N model. I will also try to do so, but I won't be able to get to it until late in the day.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 6:24 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



Second, "regional bias" is just another name for the old modeler-
driven paradigm that the NG hypothesis was meant to refute. It is
NOT part of the hypothesis.


Bruce Smith
 

On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Aley, Jeff A wrote:

Bruce,

My recollection of the G-N model is that it DOES account for regional bias. It will be difficult for us to educate each other if we are each talking about a different "G-N model"!

If you have the time, please point out to us which STMFC message contains the G-N model. I will also try to do so, but I won't be able to get to it until late in the day.
Jeff,

It is important to recognize that both emails I cite below are early examples of our discussions on this subject, and that the discussion has matured over the years so that these may not represent the ultimate iteration of the NG hypothesis.

I would start with Dave Nelson's message 18550, May 5, 2003. This is perhaps the earliest and most basic statement of the hypothesis. In this email, Dave does not mention anything about regional biases, but does allow for 20% of the fleet being "other cars". Then, I would go to Tim Gilbert's message 18757 of May 8, 2003, which is a comprehensive statistical discussion. Interestingly, in that email, Tim did say "the modeler should use a fudge factor to account for the bias towards nearby railroads which might interchange directly with his modeled road in the 1945-1955 era." However, his DATA, says that this is not true. When looking at the 1946 Southern RR wheel reports, the Southern region actually had slightly fewer home region cars than predicted (10.5% vs. 11.7%). The 1947 UP wheel reports have slightly more Central West region cars than expected (17.9% vs 15.7%). Statistically, both of these are likely to be judged to be the same (you cannot reject the null hypothesis) and therefore, there is no real regional bias present, or if there it, it is so small as to be statistically insignificant (which is the same as saying it ain't there <G>).

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Tim O'Connor
 

Jeff, the numbers sound a little "off" to me. What year is the
report from?

In 1950, there were 721,006 box cars in service. You're saying
there are 392,590 away cars in your data. That would mean there
are 328,416 home cars. That's a 55/45 split, which doesn't jive
with your figures for UP and PRR. So the "total" box cars you
have must be different than the 1950 total.

Tim O'Connor

UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were
away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was 5.02%.
Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).

Similarly, PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279
were away. These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet. Thus, a
UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting
for regional bias, etc.).


Aley, Jeff A
 

Tim,

The data are from 1945, and shows 620K box cars, of which 133K are at home, and 393K are away. Yes, I am aware that this does not add up. I need to spend some time with the data and the spreadsheet to see wherein the error may lie.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:39 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



Jeff, the numbers sound a little "off" to me. What year is the
report from?

In 1950, there were 721,006 box cars in service. You're saying
there are 392,590 away cars in your data. That would mean there
are 328,416 home cars. That's a 55/45 split, which doesn't jive
with your figures for UP and PRR. So the "total" box cars you
have must be different than the 1950 total.

Tim O'Connor

UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were
away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was 5.02%.
Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).

Similarly, PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279
were away. These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet. Thus, a
UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting
for regional bias, etc.).


Dave Nelson
 

Mike Brock wrote:

It seems to me that there are at least two issues...perhaps in
conflict. We have [ I think ] an ICC September report which [ as I
understand it ] gives the numbers of frt cars [ hopefully by class ]
of foreign RRs on a given RR.
I have a feeling that my description of this document is incorrect so
I'd like someone [ hopefully Dave Nelson ] to explain it and the
analysis of it.
The ICC required all class 1 railroads to report some data, as of September
1, of every year. It was a simple "How many house cars are online" as of
that date. "How many of those are foreign road"? Same question for open
top cars. AFAIK, this data was collected for many years and IIRC reported
in several places, one of which was the annual statistical summary (a.k.a.
the Blue Book).

Were flats open top cars? Gons probably were... But was the ICC really
interest in hoppers and couldn't find the letters to spell it? I dunno.

Being a devotee of western railroads I never paid much attention to the
second question... But I imagine it might be of interest to others.

Dave Nelson


Tim O'Connor
 

Jeff

Although box car ownership gradually increased from 1945-1955 your
number of 620,000 for 1945 sounds very low to me. The totals are given
in the Car Builder Cyclopedias. I have not checked them against the ORER
totals.

Tim O'Connor

At 4/13/2010 03:18 PM Tuesday, you wrote:
Tim,

The data are from 1945, and shows 620K box cars, of which 133K are at home, and 393K are away. Yes, I am aware that this does not add up. I need to spend some time with the data and the spreadsheet to see wherein the error may lie.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Tim O'Connor
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 11:39 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



Jeff, the numbers sound a little "off" to me. What year is the
report from?

In 1950, there were 721,006 box cars in service. You're saying
there are 392,590 away cars in your data. That would mean there
are 328,416 home cars. That's a 55/45 split, which doesn't jive
with your figures for UP and PRR. So the "total" box cars you
have must be different than the 1950 total.

Tim O'Connor

UP had 27,553 boxcars. Of these, 7,853 were on the UP and 19,700 were
away [on other RR's]. Of all the "away" cars in the country, this was 5.02%.
Thus, a PRR modeler should have UP as 5.02% of his "foreign" cars (after
accounting for regional bias, etc.).

Similarly, PRR had 78,788 box cars, of which 21,059 were home, and 57,279
were away. These away cars were 14.59% of the national away fleet. Thus, a
UP modeler should have PRR as 14.59% of his "foreign" cars (after accounting
for regional bias, etc.).


Tim O'Connor
 

Gondolas & hoppers were usually lumped together in car ownership
reports. At least, that's how they are listed in the CBC tallies.

Tim O'Connor

Were flats open top cars? Gons probably were... But was the ICC really
interest in hoppers and couldn't find the letters to spell it? I dunno.

Being a devotee of western railroads I never paid much attention to the
second question... But I imagine it might be of interest to others.

Dave Nelson


Aley, Jeff A
 

Bruce,

I was thinking more along the lines of Dave's message of May 4, 2009 (STMFC #81532):

[Quote]

The wheel reports did, IMO, confirm the basic hypothesis and allowed us to
further specify when it applied: Post WWII, on mainline trunk routes,
excluding home road boxcars, the percentage of boxcars marked for foreign
roads will closely match the percentages of boxcars contributed to the US
fleet by each railroad. By boxcar, I mean one that can be put into general
purpose use. The wheel reports do show a bit of a bias towards nearby
connections, but here I believe the sample size of locations that we have is
too small to make a good hypothesis on that point. Further, as almost all
railroads contributed less than 5% of the national fleet (most less than
1.5%), even a large bias towards local connections would compute to a very
small number per 100 foreign road boxcars.

Last, the hypothesis makes no predicition on what one might observe in
individual trains.

[End Quote]

Somewhere, I think there's a msg stating that locations of direct interchange would have additional bias (e.g. Ogden on the SP). But I haven't yet found such a msg today.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Bruce Smith
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 10:35 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report



On Apr 13, 2010, at 11:22 AM, Aley, Jeff A wrote:

Bruce,

My recollection of the G-N model is that it DOES
account for regional bias. It will be difficult for us to educate
each other if we are each talking about a different "G-N model"!

If you have the time, please point out to us which
STMFC message contains the G-N model. I will also try to do so,
but I won't be able to get to it until late in the day.
Jeff,

It is important to recognize that both emails I cite below are early
examples of our discussions on this subject, and that the discussion
has matured over the years so that these may not represent the
ultimate iteration of the NG hypothesis.

I would start with Dave Nelson's message 18550, May 5, 2003. This is
perhaps the earliest and most basic statement of the hypothesis. In
this email, Dave does not mention anything about regional biases, but
does allow for 20% of the fleet being "other cars". Then, I would go
to Tim Gilbert's message 18757 of May 8, 2003, which is a
comprehensive statistical discussion. Interestingly, in that email,
Tim did say "the modeler should use a fudge factor to account for the
bias towards nearby railroads which might interchange directly with
his modeled road in the 1945-1955 era." However, his DATA, says that
this is not true. When looking at the 1946 Southern RR wheel
reports, the Southern region actually had slightly fewer home region
cars than predicted (10.5% vs. 11.7%). The 1947 UP wheel reports
have slightly more Central West region cars than expected (17.9% vs
15.7%). Statistically, both of these are likely to be judged to be
the same (you cannot reject the null hypothesis) and therefore, there
is no real regional bias present, or if there it, it is so small as
to be statistically insignificant (which is the same as saying it
ain't there <G>).

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/index.pl/bruce_f._smith2

"Some days you are the bug, some days you are the windshield."
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Wendye Ware
 

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

Jeff

Although box car ownership gradually increased from 1945-1955 your
number of 620,000 for 1945 sounds very low to me. The totals are given
in the Car Builder Cyclopedias. I have not checked them against the ORER
totals.

Tim O'Connor
FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:

Class XM: 614,947
Classes XA, XAB, XAF, XAP, XAR: 112,981
Class XF: 1,402
Class XI: 497
Classes VA, VM, VS: 12,719

The data includes only cars in interchange service on U.S. Class I roads or their lessees. CASO is included.

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Aley, Jeff A
 

Aha! I found what I was looking for: Dave Nelson's message of 8/12/2008, excerpted here:


[Quote]

So FWIW, here's where I believe the hypothesis (several) stands today:

1) In the Post WWII years, Class I foreign-road, US marked boxcars and
flatcars were distributed fairly uniformly throughout the nation and each
type of car would be seen in numbers approximating each roads contribution
to the overall US fleet of that car type. IOW, if the NYC owned X% of the
US fleet of boxcars, then approximately X% of all foreign-road boxcars seen
on other railroads would be from the NYC.

2) Canadian Class I marked boxcars and flatcars would appear on US rails at
roughly 10% of the numbers approximating each Canadian roads contribution to
the overall US fleet of that car type. Because of regulation requiring the
prompt return of Canadian cars to Canada it was reasonable to expect a
higher concentration of Canadian marked cars on lines crossing the US
boarder than would be case if such cars wandered freely within the US.

3) The ratio of home to foreign road cars one would find on any given road
would change with overall US economic conditions, with the number of foreign
road cars rising in good economic times and falling in recessions. Actual
data of online and offline, US marked house cars and open top cars can be
found in the ICC Blue books for any given year.

4) The smoothness of the distribution of foreign road boxcar and flatcars
**may** be related to the number of and distance to the nearest interchange
points. IOW, the distribution might not be as even at corners of the US
(e.g., consider Bangor ME; Miami FL; San Diego CA; and Bellingham WA)
relative to, say, Chicago. How much the distribution changes as the number
of interchange points declines and distance to interchange points rises is
not known.

5) The number of home road boxcars and flatcars seen on the home road will
vary according to whether the location observed relative to the ratio of
outbound and inbound shipments. For instance, if Ditchwater has a 9:1 ratio
of shipments to car receipts one might expect to see home road cars in
protective service at Ditchwater as the railroad could not count on inbound
foreign road cars to appear frequently enough. OTOH, if Gotham City has a
1:9 ratio of shipments to car receipts one might expect to see very few home
road cars in protective service at Gotham City as there would be plenty of
foreign road MTY's that could be pressed into service.

6) The data does not support any hypothesis on the distribution of hoppers.
I'm not sure what Tim thought about gons or stock cars.

7) The hypothesis do not suggest anything about what one might see in any
given train but instead indicate what one might see in multiple trains over
a period of time. How many trains... How much time... The data does not
provide a definitive answer but does appear to hold true above 1000 cars.

8) The data indicates there is a **slightly higher occurrence** of adjacent
road foreign cars near interchange points with that foreign road but given
that most roads percentage of the nation fleet are very a small percentage,
in most cases the increase in actual numbers is nominal.

9) For purposes of building up a roster of model cars, the buyer would do
well to buy 20-25% home road and 75-80% foreign road boxcars and flatcars,
with the foreign road cars in rough proportion to what each foreign road
contributed to the US fleet. Ideally the buyer would acquire a large number
of additional cars for roads that contributed fewer cars to the US fleet and
using them as a pool, to cycle individual road names in and out to represent
the last 5-10% of his foreign road cars.

Dave Nelson
[End quote]


Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Larry Ostresh wrote:

FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:
Class XM: 614,947
This almost exactly matches Jeff's 620,000 cars for 1945.

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


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Jeff Aley writes:


"> Aha! I found what I was looking for: Dave Nelson's message of 8/12/2008,"

Let me add that Tim Gilbert wrote on Feb 3, 2006 [ in the STMFC archive ]:

"In 1947, the ownership of foreign boxcars aggregated into eight ICC
Geographic Regions correlated pretty well with the percentage those
regions owned of the National Boxcar Fleet. In 1949, that correlation
was blown to hell.

Mike Brock has argued that SP should be given special treatment on
account of it being an interchange partner of the UP. If SP is given
special treatment, then so should be the partners on the East End of the
UP: - the C&NW, MILW and CB&Q. These four roads had 118 of the foreign
boxcars in 1947 (vs. the equivalent of 105 which their percentages of
the national fleet warranted), and 340 of the foreign boxcars (vs. 212
of the percentages)."

That is a 60.3% "error" from the G-N projection.

Tim continues with:

"Based upon the boxcar data of other Wheel Reports I have parsed, the
correlations of foreign boxcars' ownership are much closer to Fraley's
1947 Report than his 1949 Report with the exception of a 1949 T&NO Wheel
Report in South Texas. 1949 seemed to be an exceptional year in the way
the Recession and the increase in the per diem rate affected the
geographic distribution of boxcar ownership. I have parsed no 1954 Wheel
Reports so I cannot say that Fraley's 1949 Wheel Report could be a guide
to one - 1954 was the next Recession Year."

Mike Brock


Aley, Jeff A
 

Tim, Larry, and All,

I think that I (finally) understand the spreadsheet:

The 620,230 cars is the sum of boxcars from the ORER (either 1944 or 1945), FOR THE ROADS SHOWN. I believe the list of roads is the Class 1's, but I don't know that EVERY Class 1 is represented.

For each ICC region (e.g. "Central West"), the percentage of box cars on home rails is given (28.50%).
An assumption is made that each of the roads in the Central West had exactly 28.50% of their cars on home rails. [The roads in Central West are ATSF, CB&Q, CRI&P, D&RGW, SP, and UP].

So, given that UP had 27,553 box cars, and given that 28.50% of them were at home, it follows that 7,853 UP box cars were on the UP, and 19,700 UP box cars were away.

Regards,

-Jeff


From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of laramielarry
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2010 1:44 PM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Freight car Distribution...help with ICC report




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

Jeff

Although box car ownership gradually increased from 1945-1955 your
number of 620,000 for 1945 sounds very low to me. The totals are given
in the Car Builder Cyclopedias. I have not checked them against the ORER
totals.

Tim O'Connor
FWIW there are 742,546 U.S. box, auto and ventilated cars in the January 1945 ORER. They break down as follows:

Class XM: 614,947
Classes XA, XAB, XAF, XAP, XAR: 112,981
Class XF: 1,402
Class XI: 497
Classes VA, VM, VS: 12,719

The data includes only cars in interchange service on U.S. Class I roads or their lessees. CASO is included.

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming