Topics

Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC


James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
[snip] Note, however, that until near the end of
the Pacemaker P/L scheme in the 1960s these cars operated almost
entirely in captive service on the NYC system and DID NOT go off line.

As a CASO NYC modeler, this statement jarred me a little. It was certainly the original intent of the NYC that these cars not go off-line, and the minimal reporting data on the first few paint schemes was designed to discourage interchange. However, the "post-1960" paint scheme (offered by Intermountain) had full reporting marks, and research shows those cars were no longer in restricted service.

To quote from Terry Link's "Canada Southern" website (the NYC master roster, specifically):

"Lot 848-B cars delivered in Pacemaker paint including complete dimensional data in black - these were the only cars built new in the PACEMAKER scheme - delivered in 1954. In September/October 1955, the oval "System" herald had the black background return. Complete dimensional data added to cars that were not fully repainted - usually in white paint."

Basically, the "pacemaker" fast-freight "less than carload" service had been abandoned after a few years, and the cars after September/October 1955 had repaints that definitely released them in to unrestricted service.

The lot 848-B cars of 1954 had apparently never been exclusively in restricted service but as they had 8' doors they are not the model Intermountain is offering.

With the end of the Pacemaker service, high speed trucks were replaced with "normal" freight car trucks, and higher-capacity springs reinstalled on many cars.

Even when the cars lacked full reporting marks, they were apparently constantly drifting off-line.

In short, many of the Intermountain cars would be appropriate for almost any 1950's and especially 1960's layout - especially the model of the most recent of the 4 schemes offered. By putting full reporting marks on the next most recent 1955 scheme, they would probably be more prototypical for "foreign" road use... although apparently even a car still sporting the original 1945/6 scheme could have merely had reporting marks painted on and then been released in to the general freight car pool. For layouts in the 1945-mid 50's time frame, the first two Intermountain schemes would probably be OK "as is".

The only scheme offered by Intermountain that seems to perhaps have a mistake to me is the third, "1955", scheme. It seems from Terry Link's information that any car painted after September/October 1955 would have had full reporting marks. But perhaps not, since it looks like somebody at Intermountain definitely researched these schemes. For example, in the release drawings, only the 1960 renumber scheme shows NYC lot # above the oval (which upon checking out available photos, appears to be correct).

Jim Yaworsky


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 16, 2011, at 1:55 PM, James Yaworsky wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson
<rhendrickson@...> wrote:
[snip] Note, however, that until near the end of
the Pacemaker P/L scheme in the 1960s these cars operated almost
entirely in captive service on the NYC system and DID NOT go off
line.
As a CASO NYC modeler, this statement jarred me a little. It was
certainly the original intent of the NYC that these cars not go off-
line, and the minimal reporting data on the first few paint schemes
was designed to discourage interchange.
The absence of weight data didn't merely "discourage interchange," it
absolutely prevented it.

However, the "post-1960" paint scheme (offered by Intermountain)
had full reporting marks, and research shows those cars were no
longer in restricted service.

[snip]
Even when the cars lacked full reporting marks, they were
apparently constantly drifting off-line.

In short, many of the Intermountain cars would be appropriate for
almost any 1950's and especially 1960's layout - especially the
model of the most recent of the 4 schemes offered.
By the 1960s, sure, cars that still bore Pacemaker P/L schemes went
off line in interchange. But Jim, please note that this list is
confined prototypes and models before 1960. In the absence of
compelling evidence, I'll continue to maintain that the Pacemaker
cars did not go off line in the '40s and early '50s and seldom went
off line after that. Yes, I know, there is the occasional photo of
one taken when off NYC system rails - and taken precisely because it
had strayed off NYC rails and therefore a very unusual sight. I have
a couple of those photos myself. But that doesn't justify the desire
to run Pacemaker cars on layouts representing other railroads
because, well, they're just so pretty. You can delude yourself about
this if you like, and even fall back on "it's my model railroad and
I'll do what I damned please," but this is a list for PROTOTYPE
modelers.

Richard Hendrickson


Tim O'Connor
 

The 1955 and 1959 ORER's show no special restrictions on any of the
cars known to be in Pacemaker colors. Certainly with full AAR compliant
lettering the cars would be accepted without question in interchange,
and then they'd be treated like any other 40 foot plain box cars as
far as returning towards their home road -- i.e. they might not go
back to NYC rails for some time. I have seen only a few images of NYC
cars in Pacemaker schemes; numerically they were only a tiny fraction
of all NYC box cars. So Richard and Jim could both be right -- I've seen
no evidence the cars were magically restricted to on-line service only,
but I've also seen no 1950's images of them off-line. If modelers of
non-NYC railroads want to be cautious, then don't use them -- there are
plenty of other NYC box cars to choose from that definitely were commonly
seen off-line.

Kadee will probably never do the 848-B cars, which were PS-1's with
cushioned underframes. Intermountain could have chosen to do these
since they make a PS-1, and they are generally indifferent about
minor details like underframes. :-)

( In the era we don't talk about, the Pacemaker cars definitely went all
over, and some were restenciled (patched) with PC lettering. )

Tim O'Connor

As a CASO NYC modeler, this statement jarred me a little. It was certainly the original intent of the NYC that these cars not go off-line, and the minimal reporting data on the first few paint schemes was designed to discourage interchange. However, the "post-1960" paint scheme (offered by Intermountain) had full reporting marks, and research shows those cars were no longer in restricted service.

To quote from Terry Link's "Canada Southern" website (the NYC master roster, specifically):

"Lot 848-B cars delivered in Pacemaker paint including complete dimensional data in black - these were the only cars built new in the PACEMAKER scheme - delivered in 1954. In September/October 1955, the oval "System" herald had the black background return. Complete dimensional data added to cars that were not fully repainted - usually in white paint."

Basically, the "pacemaker" fast-freight "less than carload" service had been abandoned after a few years, and the cars after September/October 1955 had repaints that definitely released them in to unrestricted service.

The lot 848-B cars of 1954 had apparently never been exclusively in restricted service but as they had 8' doors they are not the model Intermountain is offering.

With the end of the Pacemaker service, high speed trucks were replaced with "normal" freight car trucks, and higher-capacity springs reinstalled on many cars.

Even when the cars lacked full reporting marks, they were apparently constantly drifting off-line.

In short, many of the Intermountain cars would be appropriate for almost any 1950's and especially 1960's layout - especially the model of the most recent of the 4 schemes offered. By putting full reporting marks on the next most recent 1955 scheme, they would probably be more prototypical for "foreign" road use... although apparently even a car still sporting the original 1945/6 scheme could have merely had reporting marks painted on and then been released in to the general freight car pool. For layouts in the 1945-mid 50's time frame, the first two Intermountain schemes would probably be OK "as is".

The only scheme offered by Intermountain that seems to perhaps have a mistake to me is the third, "1955", scheme. It seems from Terry Link's information that any car painted after September/October 1955 would have had full reporting marks. But perhaps not, since it looks like somebody at Intermountain definitely researched these schemes. For example, in the release drawings, only the 1960 renumber scheme shows NYC lot # above the oval (which upon checking out available photos, appears to be correct).

Jim Yaworsky


 

Several years ago, prior to 2005, when I worked at K-Val Hobbies in Buffalo, I talked to the people at Kadee about doing a PS-1 boxcar in Pacemaker colors. They opted not to because they could not accurately model the car using their existing patterns, etc. Hugh T. Guillaume

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


The 1955 and 1959 ORER's show no special restrictions on any of the
cars known to be in Pacemaker colors. Certainly with full AAR compliant
lettering the cars would be accepted without question in interchange,
and then they'd be treated like any other 40 foot plain box cars as
far as returning towards their home road -- i.e. they might not go
back to NYC rails for some time. I have seen only a few images of NYC
cars in Pacemaker schemes; numerically they were only a tiny fraction
of all NYC box cars. So Richard and Jim could both be right -- I've seen
no evidence the cars were magically restricted to on-line service only,
but I've also seen no 1950's images of them off-line. If modelers of
non-NYC railroads want to be cautious, then don't use them -- there are
plenty of other NYC box cars to choose from that definitely were commonly
seen off-line.

Kadee will probably never do the 848-B cars, which were PS-1's with
cushioned underframes. Intermountain could have chosen to do these
since they make a PS-1, and they are generally indifferent about
minor details like underframes. :-)

( In the era we don't talk about, the Pacemaker cars definitely went all
over, and some were restenciled (patched) with PC lettering. )

Tim O'Connor




As a CASO NYC modeler, this statement jarred me a little. It was certainly the original intent of the NYC that these cars not go off-line, and the minimal reporting data on the first few paint schemes was designed to discourage interchange. However, the "post-1960" paint scheme (offered by Intermountain) had full reporting marks, and research shows those cars were no longer in restricted service.

To quote from Terry Link's "Canada Southern" website (the NYC master roster, specifically):

"Lot 848-B cars delivered in Pacemaker paint including complete dimensional data in black - these were the only cars built new in the PACEMAKER scheme - delivered in 1954. In September/October 1955, the oval "System" herald had the black background return. Complete dimensional data added to cars that were not fully repainted - usually in white paint."

Basically, the "pacemaker" fast-freight "less than carload" service had been abandoned after a few years, and the cars after September/October 1955 had repaints that definitely released them in to unrestricted service.

The lot 848-B cars of 1954 had apparently never been exclusively in restricted service but as they had 8' doors they are not the model Intermountain is offering.

With the end of the Pacemaker service, high speed trucks were replaced with "normal" freight car trucks, and higher-capacity springs reinstalled on many cars.

Even when the cars lacked full reporting marks, they were apparently constantly drifting off-line.

In short, many of the Intermountain cars would be appropriate for almost any 1950's and especially 1960's layout - especially the model of the most recent of the 4 schemes offered. By putting full reporting marks on the next most recent 1955 scheme, they would probably be more prototypical for "foreign" road use... although apparently even a car still sporting the original 1945/6 scheme could have merely had reporting marks painted on and then been released in to the general freight car pool. For layouts in the 1945-mid 50's time frame, the first two Intermountain schemes would probably be OK "as is".

The only scheme offered by Intermountain that seems to perhaps have a mistake to me is the third, "1955", scheme. It seems from Terry Link's information that any car painted after September/October 1955 would have had full reporting marks. But perhaps not, since it looks like somebody at Intermountain definitely researched these schemes. For example, in the release drawings, only the 1960 renumber scheme shows NYC lot # above the oval (which upon checking out available photos, appears to be correct).

Jim Yaworsky


pennsylvania1954
 

RP CYC 8, pg. 90, NYC 174710 in Pacemaker colors, reporting marks and LD LMT and LT WT (no scale station or date) in black, no dimensional data. Photo credit: "George Sisk photo taken at Kansas City, Missouri, circa 1948. Charles E. Winters collection."

Steve Hoxie
Pensacola FL


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Steve Hoxie wrote:

RP CYC 8, pg. 90, NYC 174710 in Pacemaker colors, reporting marks
and LD LMT and LT WT (no scale station or date) in black, no
dimensional data. Photo credit: "George Sisk photo taken at Kansas
City, Missouri, circa 1948. Charles E. Winters collection."
Yes, Steve, I have that photo,but it doesn't prove that Pacemaker
cars routinely visited Kansas City. I'll bet George said "Wow, look
at that" and took the photo because he'd never seen one before.

Richard Hendrickson


al_brown03
 

Remind me please, someone: what "dimensional" data did the AAR require for interchange? Just LD LMT and LT WT as on the Pacemaker cars in RP CYC 8, or was there supposed to be more?

-- tia --

-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:

On Mar 16, 2011, at 7:37 PM, Steve Hoxie wrote:

RP CYC 8, pg. 90, NYC 174710 in Pacemaker colors, reporting marks
and LD LMT and LT WT (no scale station or date) in black, no
dimensional data. Photo credit: "George Sisk photo taken at Kansas
City, Missouri, circa 1948. Charles E. Winters collection."
Yes, Steve, I have that photo,but it doesn't prove that Pacemaker
cars routinely visited Kansas City. I'll bet George said "Wow, look
at that" and took the photo because he'd never seen one before.

Richard Hendrickson



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


James Yaworsky
 

Richard wrote:
[snip]
The absence of weight data didn't merely "discourage interchange," it
absolutely prevented it.
while I am not professing to be an expert on the NYC, I have read most of the relevant books on it, and it seems to be trite knowledge in the "NYC community" (scholars, railfans, and serious modelers) that Pacemaker cars were occasionally interchanged, despite lack of necessary reporting marks, almost from the get-go. I had a coffee with Terry Link this morning and we discussed this a bit. Hopefully, Terry will weigh in to the discussion with a few thoughts he was formulating.

But one thing he definitely confirmed - his research shows that Pacemaker cars were running off-line almost from the inception of the service. With all due respect, if I have to chose who to believe on this issue, it will be a NYC expert like Terry.



By the 1960s, sure, cars that still bore Pacemaker P/L schemes went
off line in interchange. But Jim, please note that this list is
confined prototypes and models before 1960. In the absence of
compelling evidence, I'll continue to maintain that the Pacemaker
cars did not go off line in the '40s and early '50s and seldom went
off line after that. Yes, I know, there is the occasional photo of
one taken when off NYC system rails - and taken precisely because it
had strayed off NYC rails and therefore a very unusual sight. I have
a couple of those photos myself.
I am not personally privy to the source materials used by the various NYC authorities I have read to the effect that Pacemaker cars were running off NYC rails very early in the game. However, it is noted, for example, in the second NYC color scheme book from Morning Sun -NYC Color Guide to Freight and Passenger Equipment - Volume 2
(Len Kilian, Jim Odell and Jeff English) that the railway basically gave up trying to stop this, and threw in the towel on the issue with the decision to add the full reporting marks to cars painted after September/October 1955 - still well within the steam era.


But that doesn't justify the desire
to run Pacemaker cars on layouts representing other railroads
because, well, they're just so pretty. You can delude yourself about
this if you like, and even fall back on "it's my model railroad and
I'll do what I damned please," but this is a list for PROTOTYPE
modelers.
I assume when you say "you" can delude yourself, you are speaking to non-NYC modelers of this group and not me specifically. Personally, since I *am* modeling the NYC, and specifically, the CASO's western end to the Detroit River Tunnel, I can run as many of these cars as I have space for and can afford, with a clean conscience as regards the prototypical appropriateness of same... ;>)

However, the basic point of my first posting is that Pacemaker cars *did* occasionally go in to general interchange in the time era covered by this group. I don't think the existence of 3 or 4 photos proves that this only occurred 3 or 4 times. It seems just as viable of an assumption that if it was only caught on film 3 or 4 times, it happened far more often than that. And, there is the actual actions of the railway itself when it started putting the full reporting marks on the cars in 1955.

I would be curious to know who would be penalized for running a car on a foreign road if it didn't have the required reporting marks. Would the NYC be fined for allowing the car to leave home rails? Or the "foreign" road that had the car on it when spotted by an inspector? Or, both? What WERE the consequences of having a very standard design car, in apparently good shape, "caught" on a foreign road without all mandated reporting marks?

Given the NYC's decision to start putting the marks on repaints starting in 1955, it would seem reasonable to me that this decision was taken to avoid trouble. The railroad realized that its attempt to keep the cars on home rails was not working, and was bowing to the inevitable...

But there is a lot of supposition in the past few paragraphs. I for one would appreciate knowing what the actual facts were.

One thing I do still believe - these cars drifted over the North American rail network. There were only 1,000 of them in the model that Intermountain is releasing, and there obviously weren't a lot of them to be seen since the vast majority probably *did* stay only on NYC rails. A string of them - yes, bogus. But if somebody wants one of these cars, for whatever reason, on their layout, it is not "bogus".

Disclaimer: as a NYC-focused modeler, I like to see manufacturers release NYC-specific models. And this will happen more often, the more NYC-specific models they sell. So, yes, nothing would make me happier than to know that every member of this list got at least one of the Intermountain cars being released... The two most "famous" NYC pieces of equipment are probably Dreyfus Hudsons, and Pacemaker boxcars. Well, you can't justify a Dreyfus Hudson on your layout unless you *are* modeling the NYC - but you CAN justify a Pacemaker car...

Anyway, I disagree with Richard's position on the appropriateness of Pacemaker cars on other roads, and thought that the non-NYC modelers of this group deserved to know that the consensus of the NYC modeling community's best experts is to disagree with Richard's position.

Jim Yaworsky


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 17, 2011, at 6:20 PM, James Yaworsky wrote:

Richard wrote:
[snip]
The absence of weight data didn't merely "discourage interchange," it
absolutely prevented it.
while I am not professing to be an expert on the NYC, I have read
most of the relevant books on it, and it seems to be trite
knowledge in the "NYC community" (scholars, railfans, and serious
modelers) that Pacemaker cars were occasionally interchanged,
despite lack of necessary reporting marks, almost from the get-go.
I had a coffee with Terry Link this morning and we discussed this a
bit. Hopefully, Terry will weigh in to the discussion with a few
thoughts he was formulating.

But one thing he definitely confirmed - his research shows that
Pacemaker cars were running off-line almost from the inception of
the service. With all due respect, if I have to chose who to
believe on this issue, it will be a NYC expert like Terry.
[snip]

Anyway, I disagree with Richard's position on the appropriateness
of Pacemaker cars on other roads, and thought that the non-NYC
modelers of this group deserved to know that the consensus of the
NYC modeling community's best experts is to disagree with Richard's
position.

Jim Yaworsky
Jim, I'm not the least interested in trading opinions on this
subject, not even with Terry Link, whose expertise I recognize and
respect. As for the "consensus of the NYC modeling community's best
experts," we haven't heard what that is, only what you would like to
think it is.

What was missing from the original Pacemaker cars wasn't reporting
marks, it was weight data. Without that, they were not acceptable in
interchange, period. I would add that their trucks were set up for
a loaded weight much less than a conventional "50 ton" AAR box car so
that they could be operated at LCL express train speeds without the
journals running hot. These are not opinions, they are facts. It's
much less clear what the NYC's subsequent policy was regarding the
"Pacemaker" cars or when and to what extent they were interchanged
off line. I would be interested in seeing further evidence on that
subject, whether in the form of documentation or photos. It's
conceivable that evidence might cause me to modify my views on the
frequency with which "Pacemaker" cars were interchanged, especially
in the later 1950s. However, I'm interested only in hard evidence,
not uninformed speculation or even more or less educated guesses.

In any case, for my own modeling period (late 1940s), I continue to
maintain that the "Pacemaker" cars were confined to NYC Lines
trackage, with the possible exception of switching lines that
connected directly with it, and that running models of "Pacemaker"
cars on layouts representing other railroads, especially those at
some distance from the NYC, is flatly unprototypical.

Richard Hendrickson


Greg Martin
 

jyaworsky@... writes:
I would be curious to know who would be penalized for running a car on a foreign road if it didn't have the required reporting marks. Would the NYC be fined for allowing the car to leave home rails? Or the "foreign" road that had the car on it when spotted by an inspector? Or, both? What WERE the consequences of having a very standard design car, in apparently good shape, "caught" on a foreign road without all mandated reporting marks?



Jim,

By AAR interchange rules the cars were not to be interchanged (or accepted at interchange) but the fines would be levied to the Home Road for allowing the crew to interchange the car. If the fines were levied they would be minor for the first infraction. There was always the UMLER or ORER to define the car more clearly once offline.

Richard is correct and we have discussed this at length, it is human or railfan nature to photograph the unique equipment. Why take a photo of a Santa Fe car, just like all the others you have in your collection, when you find a B&M car in San Diego or a Southern Pacific car in Bangor, MA.

I try as hard as I can not to model the odd or unique car when I should be modeling tons of home road cars unless they were a regular occurrence like a UP S-40-10 in a stock car mix on the PRR. It is tempting and I do it but I generally regret it later.

Greg Martin


al_brown03
 

The reason I asked, a couple of nights back, about the exact stencilling requirements for interchange, had to do with the Sisk photo referenced earlier in this thread. The car has reporting marks, load limit, light weight, and nothing else: no capacity, no dimensional data, no dates. The picture was taken, the caption says, in 1948 in Kansas City. The NYC doesn't go to KC, so the car is off line.

The car-service rules in the 1/43 and 1/53 ORERs state what's supposed to be stencilled, but don't explicitly say what's required for interchange. I don't have a copy of the interchange rules; the group archives yield several comments that "weights" were to be stencilled, but I haven't found a firm statement as to *which* weights. I seek wisdom: does the car in Sisk's photo conform to the requirements, or not?

-- thanks --

-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

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


jyaworsky@... writes:
I would be curious to know who would be penalized for running a car on a foreign road if it didn't have the required reporting marks. Would the NYC be fined for allowing the car to leave home rails? Or the "foreign" road that had the car on it when spotted by an inspector? Or, both? What WERE the consequences of having a very standard design car, in apparently good shape, "caught" on a foreign road without all mandated reporting marks?



Jim,

By AAR interchange rules the cars were not to be interchanged (or accepted at interchange) but the fines would be levied to the Home Road for allowing the crew to interchange the car. If the fines were levied they would be minor for the first infraction. There was always the UMLER or ORER to define the car more clearly once offline.

Richard is correct and we have discussed this at length, it is human or railfan nature to photograph the unique equipment. Why take a photo of a Santa Fe car, just like all the others you have in your collection, when you find a B&M car in San Diego or a Southern Pacific car in Bangor, MA.

I try as hard as I can not to model the odd or unique car when I should be modeling tons of home road cars unless they were a regular occurrence like a UP S-40-10 in a stock car mix on the PRR. It is tempting and I do it but I generally regret it later.

Greg Martin



Benjamin Hom
 

James Yaworsky wrote:
"Disclaimer: as a NYC-focused modeler, I like to see manufacturers release
NYC-specific models. And this will happen more often, the more NYC-specific
models they sell. So, yes, nothing would make me happier than to know that every

member of this list got at least one of the Intermountain cars being released...

The two most "famous" NYC pieces of equipment are probably Dreyfus Hudsons, and
Pacemaker boxcars. Well, you can't justify a Dreyfus Hudson on your layout
unless you *are* modeling the NYC - but you CAN justify a Pacemaker car..."

Hate to say it, James, but this state of affairs ain't going to happen until
NYC-focused modelers come out and actively support NYC-specific freight cars,
mot only through sales, but through demonstrating through publishing research
showing why NYC freight car prototypes are important, and actively pushing
prototypes through product development and cooperation with the manufacutrers. 
A major resin manufacturer has been quoted as saying sales at the NYCSHS Anuual
Meeting were his worst at any historical society meeting.  Why should the rest
of us get excited when the NYC guys aren't excited about their own products?

None of this appears to be of any interest to the NYCSHS - the flyer for this
year's Society's Annual Meeting in Albany advertises two O-Scale Tinplate
layouts as being open for business, while lacking any of the Capital District's
notable layouts (and there are at least several nationally-known layouts).  I'll
bet that there was little or no support provided by NYCSHS to the BLI NYC
USRA-design steel boxcar - the single most lacking model boxcar on any HO-scale
steam era layout.

With all due respect to Jeff English, Roger Hinman, and Terry Link, I just don't
see a whole lot of action from the NYC crowd.  Ask yourself, James - why is
there so much available for the PRR models, and so little available for the NYC?


Ben Hom


Benjamin Hom
 

Al Brown wrote:
"'I seek wisdom: does the car in Sisk's photo conform to the
requirements, or not?"

It does not.  The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT WT
stencil.


Ben Hom


al_brown03
 

OK. (Thanks, Ben!) So presuming the caption's accurate, it follows that these cars indeed wandered off-line, in violation of the rules, at least occasionally. To judge whether it was very rare or less so, I'd need to study a big stack of wheel reports or conductor's books. Gut feeling: modelling a Seaboard branch in Florida in 1949, I don't want one of these. I like my weird exceptions to be subtle enough that operators don't notice them.

Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.

--- In STMFC@..., Benjamin Hom <b.hom@...> wrote:

Al Brown wrote:
"'I seek wisdom: does the car in Sisk's photo conform to the
requirements, or not?"

It does not.  The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT WT
stencil.


Ben Hom


Tim O'Connor
 

Just to add some more to the picture:

The series 174000-174999 is listed in the 1953, 1955, 1959, and 1963
Equipment Registers with 50,000 lbs capacity! So as Richard said, even
if the cars occasionally went offline (a fact) the cars were clearly in
very restricted service.

The entire series is almost fully populated (nearly 1,000 cars) in the
1953, 1955, and 1959 ORER's -- but drops to 7 cars in 1963!! So clearly
the NYC either got rid of the cars between 1959 and 1963, or reassigned
them to another series.

However, the series 175025-175999 which I think were also Lot 737-B are
all listed with 110,000 lbs capacity. And this series remained populated
in the 1963 and 1965 ORER's. It makes me think that the "Pacemaker" cars
174000-174999 were somehow quite different. Was it just the trucks, or
some other factor?

Tim O'Connor

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

OK. (Thanks, Ben!) So presuming the caption's accurate, it follows that these cars indeed wandered off-line, in violation of the rules, at least occasionally. To judge whether it was very rare or less so, I'd need to study a big stack of wheel reports or conductor's books. Gut feeling: modelling a Seaboard branch in Florida in 1949, I don't want one of these. I like my weird exceptions to be subtle enough that operators don't notice them.
Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.


pullmanboss <tcmadden@...>
 

Cosidering our era of interest is more than half a century in the rear view mirror, I suspect many of us will need Pacemakers of one form or another before too long. And we should _hope_ they never go off-line!

Tom Madden

Young modeler: How do you like my coalporter?

Old modeler: OK, but Gershwin was better.


brianleppert@att.net
 

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

It makes me think that the "Pacemaker" cars
174000-174999 were somehow quite different. Was it just the trucks, or
some other factor?

Tim O'Connor
Definately the trucks. The trucks I've seen in the photos are 50-ton Barber S-1-L, but NYC had changed the spring package. Instead of the normal 4 springs per side frame that were standard on S-1 trucks, these had only had 3, surely to provide a softer ride for a lighter load. For a good photo of one of these trucks, see Richard Hendrickson's truck article in Railway Prototype Cyclopedia, #4, page 42.

Brian Leppert
Carson City, NV


Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- In STMFC@..., "al_brown03" <abrown@...> wrote:

Remind me please, someone: what "dimensional" data did the AAR require for interchange? Just LD LMT and LT WT as on the Pacemaker cars in RP CYC 8, or was there supposed to be more?
-- tia --
-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
Al,
I don't believe anyone directly answered your question.

In Section 3, FREIGHT CAR CONSTRUCTION of each Car Builders' Cyclopedia there is "A.A.R. [or A.R.A.] Standards, Lettering and Marking" near the beginning with illustrations showing the required lettering for different types of freight cars. These are large, easy to read drawings.

(Photos are better for lettering models, of course, but these drawings could be used in the absence of a photo. Doing so would almost certainly guarantee that someone would immediately come up with a photo proving said lettering to be wrong.)

The correct source, because it is updated at least annually and in most years more often than that, is the Interchange Rules but there are few or no illustrations, just text.

Absolute statements that the lack of required stenciling makes interchange impossible are not exactly correct, close but not quite. The interchange rules give the receiving railroad the right to refuse to accept a car not in compliance if the receiving railroad chooses to do so. They can also accept such a car.

As a practical matter, the most likely instance of interchanging a car not in compliance with interchange rules is inside a switching district where a switching line may hand off a car not in compliance to another railroad for delivery within that same switching district.

The two paragraphs above are going to get me into trouble so I'll be ducking for cover as soon as I hit 'send.'

Truth be told, it would take a bevy of Philadelphia lawyers to figure out all the interchange rules. That is why you will find a Code of Car Service Rules and Interpretations in every Equipment Register and why the ARA/AAR has an Arbitration Committee and why there is a long list of Arbitration Committee Decisions in each annual Proceedings of the ARA/AAR Mechanical Division or predecessor organizations.

Gene Green
Ducking for cover now ;-)


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Mar 18, 2011, at 7:02 PM, Gene wrote:

--- In STMFC@..., "al_brown03" <abrown@...> wrote:

Remind me please, someone: what "dimensional" data did the AAR
require for interchange? Just LD LMT and LT WT as on the Pacemaker
cars in RP CYC 8, or was there supposed to be more?
-- tia --
-- Al Brown, Melbourne, Fla.
Al,
I don't believe anyone directly answered your question.

In Section 3, FREIGHT CAR CONSTRUCTION of each Car Builders'
Cyclopedia there is "A.A.R. [or A.R.A.] Standards, Lettering and
Marking" near the beginning with illustrations showing the required
lettering for different types of freight cars. These are large,
easy to read drawings.

(Photos are better for lettering models, of course, but these
drawings could be used in the absence of a photo. Doing so would
almost certainly guarantee that someone would immediately come up
with a photo proving said lettering to be wrong.)

The correct source, because it is updated at least annually and in
most years more often than that, is the Interchange Rules but there
are few or no illustrations, just text.

Absolute statements that the lack of required stenciling makes
interchange impossible are not exactly correct, close but not
quite. The interchange rules give the receiving railroad the right
to refuse to accept a car not in compliance if the receiving
railroad chooses to do so. They can also accept such a car.

As a practical matter, the most likely instance of interchanging a
car not in compliance with interchange rules is inside a switching
district where a switching line may hand off a car not in
compliance to another railroad for delivery within that same
switching district.

The two paragraphs above are going to get me into trouble so I'll
be ducking for cover as soon as I hit 'send.'

Truth be told, it would take a bevy of Philadelphia lawyers to
figure out all the interchange rules. That is why you will find a
Code of Car Service Rules and Interpretations in every Equipment
Register and why the ARA/AAR has an Arbitration Committee and why
there is a long list of Arbitration Committee Decisions in each
annual Proceedings of the ARA/AAR Mechanical Division or
predecessor organizations.

Gene Green
Ducking for cover now ;-)
No need to duck for cover, Gene. That is as clear a statement of the
facts as could reasonably be made. Of course the interchange rules
weren't always absolutely enforced to the letter of the law, since it
was the receiving railroad's responsibility to do so, and an official
who could exercise that responsibility wasn't always on the scene.
On the other hand, the rules weren't merely trivial and were not to
be ignored with impunity. Certainly there is evidence of violations,
but such violations were rare. For example, I have a W. C. Whittaker
photo of an Illinois Northern box car in Oakland CA clearly stenciled
"not to be operated off IN rails." But you can be sure that whoever
allowed that car to be loaded for an off-line destination got called
on the carpet.

Richard Hendrickson


Patrick Wilkinson <glgpat@...>
 

Ben,



The NYC group is funny that way, I have been a member for years and from
what several of my friends and I can tell if you live west of the Hudson
River you don't really count.



I was wondering if that picture of the Pacemaker car could be a simple case
of the wrong car got on the wrong train? We all know that never happens . .
. .



Pat Wilkinson