Topics

Pacemaker boxcar usage off-line of NYC


Tim O'Connor
 

Jim

Don't forget the spectacular mile-long Alfred H. Smith bridge below Albany;
the massive double track steel truss at Kingston (imported by Overland in brass);
the amazing 3-level flyover bridges at Fuller Station NY and the twin steel trestles
over the gorge at Fuller just a mile or so to the south.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=selkirk+NY&aq=&sll=37.926868,-95.712891&sspn=58.180705,103.183594&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Selkirk,+Albany,+New+York&ll=42.725523,-73.960299&spn=0.003476,0.008342&t=k&z=18

People do model the NYC -- I think Jim Six and others are fans of NYC flat land
railroading in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. And there are quite a few fans here in
New England where we still call it the "Boston & Albany".

Tim O'Connor

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

Also, it's hard to model 2 or 4 track mainline action in a reasonable space! It's not "quaint". No mountains. What "spectacular" scenery there is consists of massive items like a very large bridge across the wide and deep Niagara River gorge just north of the Falls etc.

However, do we really know how many layouts have actually been constructed for any given prototype railroad? How many NYC-themed model railroads exist? There's really no way of knowing, is there?

Jim Yaworsky


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Jon Miller <atsf@...> wrote:

Then as now I assume there were many laws that "had no teeth".
This meaning that they are on paper but have no criminal penalties or
way to extract money associated with them.
These weren't "laws". The were the provisions of a voluntary agreement between the railroads.

Dennis


Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.

Then as now I assume there were many laws that "had no teeth".
This meaning that they are on paper but have no criminal penalties or
way to extract money associated with them.

--
Jon Miller
For me time stopped in 1941
Digitrax--Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI User
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, guycwilber@... wrote:

Greg Martin wrote:

<<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.>>



By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.
That was my impression... during the steam era the only recourse the receiving road had was to refuse the car... and if it did so, the NYC would have to send it to the RIP track, spot another car, and hire a gang of labors to transfer the load to the new car, providing supervision for the work so the load wasn't pilfered.

Or, someone of suitable authority on the NYC could just call his counterpart on the connecting road and remind him about the last time they'd accepted a junk car from HIM, and all would be good in the world.

The only place the car was likely to cause a problem would be returning the car under load, IF the new shipper needed the light weight of the car... and that was the problem of neither of the two gentlemen listed above.

Dennis


James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, guycwilber@... wrote:

Greg Martin wrote:
<<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.


By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.


Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada
Along the same lines of inquiry, *if* fines were levied by whatever procedures were in place, it would be quite the find if records were still extant for the 1945-1960 period that showed how many times the NYC was fined for Pacemaker cars off home rails with deficient reporting marks.

From what I've read, the decision in 1955 to start painting full reporting marks on shopped Pacemaker cars might have been because of several reasons. One might have been flack the Central received for cars that had, for whatever reason, drifted off home rails with insufficient reporting marks. There is also the 1954 takeover of Central management by the Young/Perlman team. Al Perlman was interested in going in a different direction i.e. Flexi-van. Then, there is also the fact that the whole Pacemaker service concept had never met initial revenue expectations - every section of Interstate highway that opened was another nail in its coffin.

The 1955 decision might very well have been taken from a combination of all these reasons.

By 1960 with the program to mass renumber the 74000 series cars back in to the general boxcar pool, the Central was totally committed to the Flexi-van route for this sort of traffic.

Under Perlman, cars that still had an adequate paint job were, generally speaking, not going to be repainted just for "show". Perlman was more interested in results than appearances, and definitely *not* interested in wasting money for nothing. So the Pacemaker scheme lasted a long time after Pacemaker service itself had been discontinued.

Jim Yaworsky


Guy Wilber
 

Greg Martin wrote:




<<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.>>



By what means and by whom were the fines levied? There was absolutley no system in place for penalties within the structure of the ARA/AAR Interchange or Car Service Rules at least within the scope of the STMFC.



Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada











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


Guy Wilber
 

<<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. >>


All interchanged cars were to meet the stenciling requirements within Interchange Rules 3, 30, and 86. All cars were also subject to the requirements of the Operating-Transportation Department of the ARA and AAR (post 1934). This includes all provisions within the Car Service Rules and The Standards of The Lettering and Markings of Cars within the Manual of Standard and Recommended Practice of the Association often referenced within the Interchange Rules.


The following entries are from the 1956 Interchange Rules. Though renumbered (several times), the first three paragraphs of Rule 3 are essentially the same as from 1933 forward. Paragraph 7 was added in 1953 with an effective date of January 1, 1955, and Paragraph 8 was added in 1955. Rules 30 and 86 are as they were from the late 1920s with some modifications throughout the years. If you have specific time period questions regarding modifications they can be answered.


INTERCHANGE RULES (Effective January 1, 1956):


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (4) Stenciling: Date built new, month and year, or badge plate giving this information, required on all cars. Date rebuilt, in addition to date built new, month and year or badge plate giving this information, required on all cars rebuilt on or after July 1, 1928. From owners. In event tank and underframe of tank car are built at different times each must bear distinctive dates, the dates on underframe to be date underframe (including trucks) was built new.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (5) Stenciling: Light weight and capacity in pounds, as provided in Rules 30 and 86, required on all cars. In Interchange. Tank cars and live poultry cars shall be reweighed and remarked by the owners or their authorized representatives.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (6) Stenciling: Load limit markings, as provided in Rule 30, required all cars except tank cars and live poultry cars. In Interchange.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (7) Stenciling: Car initials and numbers required on one side of each truck bolster. From Owners.


Rule 3, Section (s), Paragraph (8) Stenciling: All car initials and numbers per pages L-37 through L-39-D of Manual of Standard and Recommended Practice must be legible. From Owners.


Rule 30, Section (F)--Stenciling.


Paragraph (1) Should be in accordance with AAR Standards for Marking and Lettering of Cars.


Paragraph (2) Station symbol and date (month and year) must be stenciled on cars when new and each time re-weighed and re-stenciled. On new cars the word "new" may be substituted for station symbol.


Paragraph (3) When cars are re-stenciled after re-weighing, all old stenciling to be renewed must be obliterated with quick drying paint. It will be necessary only to renew all light-weight numerals, station symbol, date (month and year), and load limit numerals except as provided in Paragraph 6, section (F). The capacity numeral and letters "CAPY", "LD LMT", and "LT WT", when indistinct, must be renewed. light weight stenciling on ends of cars is not permitted and when shown must be obliterated.


Paragraph (4) The light weight stenciling shall be the multiple of 100 lbs. nearest the scale weight, except that when the scale weight indicates an even 50 lbs. the lower multiple shall be used.


Paragraph (5) The LOAD LIMIT, which is the difference between the light weight and the maximum weight on rail, as shown in table in AAR Interchange Rule 86, shall be initially stenciled on all cars (except tank and live poultry cars) by the car owner. The "load limit" is the permissible weight of the lading, including weight of temporary fixtures, also brine and ice in refrigerator cars. Stenciled load limit must not be more than nominal capacity.


Paragraph (6) When account structural limitations or other reasons, car owner has reduced the load limit of a car, a star symbol (*), the size of which shall conform to standard lettering for "LD LMT" shall be placed at immediate left of words "LD LMT", and when thus designated the load limit shall be changed only be the car owner.


Paragraph (7) The NOMINAL CAPACITY in multiples of 1,000 pounds, shall be initially stenciled on car by car owner and must not exceed the stenciled load limit.


Paragraph (8) The CUBIC CAPACITY shall be initially stenciled on cars, by car owner, except that such markings are not required on flat, tank, and live poultry cars.


Rule 86, Section (a), Paragraph (4) All cars to have their light weight and capacity in pounds stenciled on them, as per Section (s), Paragraph (5), Rule 3. Load limit markings are also required on all cars, except tank cars and live poultry cars, as provided in Rule 30.




<<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?>>


The NYC car in question does not conform to the provisions of the Interchange Rules.



Regards,


Guy Wilber
Reno, Nevada











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


James Yaworsky
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Andy Harman <gsgondola@...> wrote:
Is interest in the NYC in general passe'? Even as a kid, I thought of the
NYC as the "Gray Suits" of railroading - not flashy but all business,
elegant, and prosperous. I guess that doesn't translate to a modeling
interest.

Andy

You have expressed an interesting theory in a very concise and elegant matter, and as I read the "Gray Suits" sentence, I thought to myself that I've never come across a better one-liner to describe the essence of the NYC at many times in its fairly long history.

Of course, there were some not-so prosperous times, as well... Personally, I model Perlman's Road to the Future, fighting for its life, a bit run down but concentrating on the essentials and developing many innovative and exciting practices.

Also, it's hard to model 2 or 4 track mainline action in a reasonable space! It's not "quaint". No mountains. What "spectacular" scenery there is consists of massive items like a very large bridge across the wide and deep Niagara River gorge just north of the Falls etc.

However, do we really know how many layouts have actually been constructed for any given prototype railroad? How many NYC-themed model railroads exist? There's really no way of knowing, is there?

Jim Yaworsky


Bruce Smith
 

Andy,

A car assigned to LCL service does not need a tare weight as the shipper
is not being charged by the carload. The lack of this data on the car
side would also indicated to a shipper that the car could not be used
for carload shipments based on weight.

Regards
Bruce Smith
Auburn, AL

Andy Harman <gsgondola@gp30.com> 03/18/11 11:49 PM >>>
At 07:31 AM 3/18/2011 -0700, you wrote:

It does not. The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT
WT
stencil.
Why was this information omitted? Just to prevent interchange? Not
like
there's any great expense involved in providing it.

Andy



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


dgconnery@sbcglobal.net <dgconnery@...>
 

This discussion has been quite interesting. I think it points out the risks of assuming everything worked by the book on a railroad. What the bosses put out in proclamations were not always followed to the letter.

I worked in the telegraph office of the NYC in Albany, NY from March 1956 to September 1958. At the time there was a lot of internal promotion of the NYC's Pacemaker service in company literature. I also remember a series of messages being fired back and forth between someone in a position in one of the yards and a freight agent at a local town about putting inappropriate loads in Pacemaker cars. The messages were noteworthy in that both parties seemed really upset by the whole thing. It didn't make a lot of sense to me at the time and when I talked with others in the office they just laughed at it as some new hire college kid at the yard trying to everything by the book.

It is easy to visualize a local agent sending a group of cars to a good shipper, some Pacemaker cars for that service and some regular boxcars for shipments off the system. If the customer's wharehouse men get shipments loaded in the wrong type cars, what is the local agent to do when a Pacemaker car comes back from the shipper consigned to an off system location. Does he send it back to the shipper to get it unloaded and then reloaded in the correct car? probably not.

The business had to get done despite the published practices.

Dave Connery


Andy Harman
 

At 07:31 AM 3/18/2011 -0700, you wrote:

It does not.  The dead giveaway is the lack of dimensional data and LT WT
stencil.
Why was this information omitted? Just to prevent interchange? Not like
there's any great expense involved in providing it.

Andy


Andy Harman
 

At 07:26 AM 3/18/2011 -0700, you wrote:
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?

I've never understood why there is so little interest in the NYC in
Cincinnati. It was one of 7 original major railroads to serve the city,
and in terms of making its presence known, perhaps wasn't #1 but was no
worse than #3. We have a very active cadre of modelers of the PRR, B&O,
C&O, L&N, Southern, and N&W but there are exactly five NYC modelers in the
area that I know of... myself and my brother, who are only part time NYC
and have other interests. One of the guys is a brass collector, one
doesn't own a phone, and the other has pretty much gotten out of the hobby.
Cincinnati isn't on the Hudson River, but it is one of the Big Four, steam
was active here right up to the end.

Is interest in the NYC in general passe'? Even as a kid, I thought of the
NYC as the "Gray Suits" of railroading - not flashy but all business,
elegant, and prosperous. I guess that doesn't translate to a modeling
interest.

Andy


pullmanboss <tcmadden@...>
 

Pat Wilkinson:

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.
From comments made on the Passenger Car List over the years I gather there was a time when the "old heads" who dominated the NYCHS had little use for modelers and their interests.

Tom Madden


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


Richard Hendrickson
 

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

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "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


Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "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 ;-)


brianleppert@att.net
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, 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


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.


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.


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@yahoogroups.com, 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