Date   

locked Southern Railway Horse Express Car Stencil Drawing - early version

George Eichelberger
 

Here is a copy of the stencil diagram for one of the Southern's Southeastern Express, horse cars. It is © SRHA for personal use only.

"Southeastern Express" was the Southern's version of what became the Railway Express Agency. It became part of the American Railway Express under the USRA in WWI, back to an independent operation in the early 20s and became part of the Railway Express about 1938. The drawing (10-27-1925) shows the side sill stripe and rather "fancy" serif lettering before it was simplified. Bethlehem Car Works offered very nicely done kits of horse cars with windows for the Southern, (the same design may have been used by the SAL and ACL) and a windowless car for PRR. The Southern's cars appear to have been converted to baggage cars about 1941 with horses traveling in PRR cars through the 50s.

I will post photos of models of the PRR and Southern cars after I can take some acceptable photos.

Ike


locked Re: Materials from the SRHA Archives

Bill Schafer
 

Matt and Ike:

A few random thoughts, below.

—Bill

On May 8, 2020, at 12:42, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

Matt:

First of all, thank you for your response! As a publisher, you have a solid background in the subject….
My comments below follow yours with ****

On May 8, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Matt Bumgarner <tarheelpress@...> wrote:

Here's my 2 cents worth:

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?
No. I am not a board member, but I would think that other than magazine production, archive expansion and maintenance are SRHA's number one expense.  I WOULD make archive material (drawings, artwork, stencils, etc) free to manufacturers of models and other museums since, ostensibly, they are furthering interest in "our" railroad via ways we do not reach. 

******
Matt: Great point! We started providing anything we could to the model manufacturers back with the Model Power E units…and have never stopped. We ALL want to see high quality models be available. (I received a request from one of the top manufacturers about an hour ago.)

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

I don't think there should be a separate fee. If we need more money to sustain archive growth and maintenance, add it to the annual membership fee.

*******
Matt: That idea has never come up, I’d worry about it keeping some from joining but it’s worthy of discussion.

Rather than add it to the membership fee, I think it would be more productive - and avoid the risk of pricing our membership out of the range of some folks - if we made targeted special appeals for donations for specific projects (we do this informally anyway). Another idea would be to take the income from the “sustaining” membership fees (over and above the standard membership fee) and from the voluntary contributions received in the membership renewal process, and designate those funds for SRHA expenses such as the Archives. 

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

I like the model similar to one that the National Archives uses. *IF* a request comes through that is simple and one of the staff or regular volunteers deems easy enough, they can do it free of charge. IF it is beyond the scope of that, refer to the requestor to a list of approved researchers and let those researchers determine their hourly or job fee-- on top of the costs of any any copy request

****
If something is already in the digital files, it’s a lot easier to find and provide. Doing research and locating specific topics is much harder. Even if someone could get to the archives to do their own research, someone has to help them. Then, there is the question if they want to make copies or do scans. Ink for the printers is not cheap, sometimes we ask for a small donation for that….no one has even been upset or said “no”. (The “vibe” when people are in the archives is great….maybe too much time is lost to just visiting but even that is valuable when people can get together.)

We have had local University students work in the archives. They are usually not with us long enough to “figure out” the archives enough to do research for others. A paid archives person, even if one day a week would be great but we’d need a funding source,

D. What should be charged for research or copies? 
$15 per hour is entirely reasonable. Paper copies at 25 cents each (50 cents for legal size), $10 per high resolution scan. 


Agreed - the going rate I have been paying for TIES photos from libraries and local historical groups is about $10 for a hi-res digital image. It will take some work, but I think a good source of SRHA income might be to set up a system where we post low-res images available for sale on our website, and enable those who wish to order hi-res images on-line to do so. Before making the scans available, have the purchaser execute, electronically, a use agreement, which includes credit to SRHA Archives. Charge $10 per image. Assume anyone who orders an image this way will use it for a commercial purpose.

***
Good numbers!

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed? 

Sort of... I would rather just have commercial customers sign a "Right to Use for Commerical Purposes" for photographs only. UNC-CH and Duke charge $25.00 per photo with a $1000 cap. For information/academic/book-author usage, I think information gleaned should be allowed from research. Ain't nobody- author or publisher- getting rich from just information (or really, photos) for that matter. But a charge on photos does prevent the mass "Arcadia" book from diluting the importance of the photo archive. 

** We have prepared both “commercial” and “personal" RTUs to accommodate the different requirements. We have never been able to settle on a fair price for photos. All I know is that since the end of “wet paper” photography, $25 per print is too high. The few times it has come up for people doing books, we talk it through and find a good number, sometimes only a credit to SRHA. (As with models, books on the Southern, like yours, are a benefit to all of us.)

I think we should do away with hard copies of photographs altogether and just make our images available digitally for $10 per hi-res scan. Accompany that with a one-time use agreement. This is for commercial use. For other non-profit historical societies such as ours, I suggest providing the images for free or a nominal charge provided proper credit is given. Among the RR historical groups I deal with, all have been most generous of information and images and I want to reciprocate in kind. 

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?
Yes. $100 per session/subject unless academic, peer museum, or manufacturer related, with the stipulation that they cannot merely buy a single year membership prior to their research visit in order save money on the fee. 

Rather than $100 per session, how about requiring a two-year membership ($70) that would also serve as an access fee to the archives for that length of time. Require that the user make the results of his/her research available to SRHA for SRHA use. This again assumes a commercial reason for wanting to do research in our facility, and would not apply to a non-profit or an organization that is working on a project that benefits SRHA. 

Just my 2 cents worth--  dollar figures quoted for "stake in the ground" talking points, your mileage may vary, Reasonable people can have reasonable differences.

Matt Bumgarner


Matt…thanks again…..
Ike

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:37 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Posted to both the SouthernRailway and SRS.io groups.

I will post a higher resolution version of the horse car scan shortly. The stencil has several really interesting aspects folks may want to discuss.

Before I do, and not because of this request, let me take this opportunity to ask some honest questions that are almost sure to create a “pile” of comments.

I am fully aware that the general thought is that “everything on the Internet is free”. I have seen where people post material with an obvious copyright or fail to ask an owner’s permission before posting something. I get it…. but there is a problem…

Using SRHA as the example:
For the past 25 or 30 years SRHA has been accumulating, storing, buying, paying to move and using volunteer hours there has always been people willing to help with the time, effort and hard cash needed to make those things happen. ALL of that for so many years has been done by people that simply want to preserve the history of the Southern Railway System, most have also been SRHA members.

SRHA does not receive any public financing that requires us to make our materials available to the public. Although NO SRHA membership fees are used for the archives, the logic has always been to make the archives accessible to SRHA members because of their demonstrated interest in the Southern. I doubt any request for a copy of a drawing or photo or permission to scan something has ever been denied to anyone that volunteers at the archives or is serious about writing an article for TIES or another magazine.

So, my question: How should the SRHA archives handle requests for copies of material?

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

D. What should be charged for research or copies?

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed?

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?

Ike





locked Re: Materials from the SRHA Archives

George Eichelberger
 

Matt:

First of all, thank you for your response! As a publisher, you have a solid background in the subject….
My comments below follow yours with ****

On May 8, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Matt Bumgarner <tarheelpress@...> wrote:

Here's my 2 cents worth:

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?
No. I am not a board member, but I would think that other than magazine production, archive expansion and maintenance are SRHA's number one expense.  I WOULD make archive material (drawings, artwork, stencils, etc) free to manufacturers of models and other museums since, ostensibly, they are furthering interest in "our" railroad via ways we do not reach. 

******
Matt: Great point! We started providing anything we could to the model manufacturers back with the Model Power E units…and have never stopped. We ALL want to see high quality models be available. (I received a request from one of the top manufacturers about an hour ago.)

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

I don't think there should be a separate fee. If we need more money to sustain archive growth and maintenance, add it to the annual membership fee.

*******
Matt: That idea has never come up, I’d worry about it keeping some from joining but it’s worthy of discussion.

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

I like the model similar to one that the National Archives uses. *IF* a request comes through that is simple and one of the staff or regular volunteers deems easy enough, they can do it free of charge. IF it is beyond the scope of that, refer to the requestor to a list of approved researchers and let those researchers determine their hourly or job fee-- on top of the costs of any any copy request

****
If something is already in the digital files, it’s a lot easier to find and provide. Doing research and locating specific topics is much harder. Even if someone could get to the archives to do their own research, someone has to help them. Then, there is the question if they want to make copies or do scans. Ink for the printers is not cheap, sometimes we ask for a small donation for that….no one has even been upset or said “no”. (The “vibe” when people are in the archives is great….maybe too much time is lost to just visiting but even that is valuable when people can get together.)

We have had local University students work in the archives. They are usually not with us long enough to “figure out” the archives enough to do research for others. A paid archives person, even if one day a week would be great but we’d need a funding source,

D. What should be charged for research or copies? 
$15 per hour is entirely reasonable. Paper copies at 25 cents each (50 cents for legal size), $10 per high resolution scan. 

***
Good numbers!

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed? 

Sort of... I would rather just have commercial customers sign a "Right to Use for Commerical Purposes" for photographs only. UNC-CH and Duke charge $25.00 per photo with a $1000 cap. For information/academic/book-author usage, I think information gleaned should be allowed from research. Ain't nobody- author or publisher- getting rich from just information (or really, photos) for that matter. But a charge on photos does prevent the mass "Arcadia" book from diluting the importance of the photo archive. 

** We have prepared both “commercial” and “personal" RTUs to accommodate the different requirements. We have never been able to settle on a fair price for photos. All I know is that since the end of “wet paper” photography, $25 per print is too high. The few times it has come up for people doing books, we talk it through and find a good number, sometimes only a credit to SRHA. (As with models, books on the Southern, like yours, are a benefit to all of us.)

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?
Yes. $100 per session/subject unless academic, peer museum, or manufacturer related, with the stipulation that they cannot merely buy a single year membership prior to their research visit in order save money on the fee. 

Just my 2 cents worth--  dollar figures quoted for "stake in the ground" talking points, your mileage may vary, Reasonable people can have reasonable differences.

Matt Bumgarner


Matt…thanks again…..
Ike

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:37 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Posted to both the SouthernRailway and SRS.io groups.

I will post a higher resolution version of the horse car scan shortly. The stencil has several really interesting aspects folks may want to discuss.

Before I do, and not because of this request, let me take this opportunity to ask some honest questions that are almost sure to create a “pile” of comments.

I am fully aware that the general thought is that “everything on the Internet is free”. I have seen where people post material with an obvious copyright or fail to ask an owner’s permission before posting something. I get it…. but there is a problem…

Using SRHA as the example:
For the past 25 or 30 years SRHA has been accumulating, storing, buying, paying to move and using volunteer hours there has always been people willing to help with the time, effort and hard cash needed to make those things happen. ALL of that for so many years has been done by people that simply want to preserve the history of the Southern Railway System, most have also been SRHA members.

SRHA does not receive any public financing that requires us to make our materials available to the public. Although NO SRHA membership fees are used for the archives, the logic has always been to make the archives accessible to SRHA members because of their demonstrated interest in the Southern. I doubt any request for a copy of a drawing or photo or permission to scan something has ever been denied to anyone that volunteers at the archives or is serious about writing an article for TIES or another magazine.

So, my question: How should the SRHA archives handle requests for copies of material?

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

D. What should be charged for research or copies?

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed?

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?

Ike




locked Re: Materials from the SRHA Archives

Matt Bumgarner
 

Here's my 2 cents worth:

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?
No. I am not a board member, but I would think that other than magazine production, archive expansion and maintenance are SRHA's number one expense.  I WOULD make archive material (drawings, artwork, stencils, etc) free to manufacturers of models and other museums since, ostensibly, they are furthering interest in "our" railroad via ways we do not reach. 


B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?
I don't think there should be a separate fee. If we need more money to sustain archive growth and maintenance, add it to the annual membership fee.

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?
I like the model similar to one that the National Archives uses. *IF* a request comes through that is simple and one of the staff or regular volunteers deems easy enough, they can do it free of charge. IF it is beyond the scope of that, refer to the requestor to a list of approved researchers and let those researchers determine their hourly or job fee-- on top of the costs of any any copy request

D. What should be charged for research or copies? 
$15 per hour is entirely reasonable. Paper copies at 25 cents each (50 cents for legal size), $10 per high resolution scan. 

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed? 
Sort of... I would rather just have commercial customers sign a "Right to Use for Commerical Purposes" for photographs only. UNC-CH and Duke charge $25.00 per photo with a $1000 cap. For information/academic/book-author usage, I think information gleaned should be allowed from research. Ain't nobody- author or publisher- getting rich from just information (or really, photos) for that matter. But a charge on photos does prevent the mass "Arcadia" book from diluting the importance of the photo archive. 

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?
Yes. $100 per session/subject unless academic, peer museum, or manufacturer related, with the stipulation that they cannot merely buy a single year membership prior to their research visit in order save money on the fee. 

Just my 2 cents worth--  dollar figures quoted for "stake in the ground" talking points, your mileage may vary, Reasonable people can have reasonable differences.

Matt Bumgarner

On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:37 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Posted to both the SouthernRailway and SRS.io groups.

I will post a higher resolution version of the horse car scan shortly. The stencil has several really interesting aspects folks may want to discuss.

Before I do, and not because of this request, let me take this opportunity to ask some honest questions that are almost sure to create a “pile” of comments.

I am fully aware that the general thought is that “everything on the Internet is free”. I have seen where people post material with an obvious copyright or fail to ask an owner’s permission before posting something. I get it…. but there is a problem…

Using SRHA as the example:
For the past 25 or 30 years SRHA has been accumulating, storing, buying, paying to move and using volunteer hours there has always been people willing to help with the time, effort and hard cash needed to make those things happen. ALL of that for so many years has been done by people that simply want to preserve the history of the Southern Railway System, most have also been SRHA members.

SRHA does not receive any public financing that requires us to make our materials available to the public. Although NO SRHA membership fees are used for the archives, the logic has always been to make the archives accessible to SRHA members because of their demonstrated interest in the Southern. I doubt any request for a copy of a drawing or photo or permission to scan something has ever been denied to anyone that volunteers at the archives or is serious about writing an article for TIES or another magazine.

So, my question: How should the SRHA archives handle requests for copies of material?

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

D. What should be charged for research or copies?

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed?

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?

Ike


locked Materials from the SRHA Archives

George Eichelberger
 

Posted to both the SouthernRailway and SRS.io groups.

I will post a higher resolution version of the horse car scan shortly. The stencil has several really interesting aspects folks may want to discuss.

Before I do, and not because of this request, let me take this opportunity to ask some honest questions that are almost sure to create a “pile” of comments.

I am fully aware that the general thought is that “everything on the Internet is free”. I have seen where people post material with an obvious copyright or fail to ask an owner’s permission before posting something. I get it…. but there is a problem…

Using SRHA as the example:
For the past 25 or 30 years SRHA has been accumulating, storing, buying, paying to move and using volunteer hours there has always been people willing to help with the time, effort and hard cash needed to make those things happen. ALL of that for so many years has been done by people that simply want to preserve the history of the Southern Railway System, most have also been SRHA members.

SRHA does not receive any public financing that requires us to make our materials available to the public. Although NO SRHA membership fees are used for the archives, the logic has always been to make the archives accessible to SRHA members because of their demonstrated interest in the Southern. I doubt any request for a copy of a drawing or photo or permission to scan something has ever been denied to anyone that volunteers at the archives or is serious about writing an article for TIES or another magazine.

So, my question: How should the SRHA archives handle requests for copies of material?

A. Should SRHA simply understand that archives and library material should be free to anyone?

B. If so, how are collections to be purchased, housed, etc? (The SRHA archives cash investment over the years is well over $500,000.) Should there be some form of archives membership fee?

C. Should archives volunteers be willing to do research upon request? Should there be a cost to the requestor?

D. What should be charged for research or copies?

E. Should people sign a “Right to Use” agreement. Items would only be for personal, non commercial use and not to be distributed?

F. Should there be a fee for non-SRHA members to visit the archives?

Ike


locked Re: structures--specifically "section dwellings" -- how were they used?

George Eichelberger
 

The SRHA archives contain several versions of Section Foremans’ and Laborers’ houses. The designs changed over the years and do not appear to have been standardized across the SRS.  Many were sold through the 1950s. Typical prices were $100 or less with a requirement to get them off company property in 30 days. The archives contain quite a few sales records. A remarkable number exist even today. (The “Types” referred to in the ICC documentation do not appear to correspond to other records or documentation.)

The attached portion of one of the drawings shows the Section Foreman’s house built at John Sevier Yard. The photo, from 1917 is the Foreman’s house at Bamberg, SC. There were also designs for Agents’s houses and other job types.

All were accompanied by another Southern standard building; 1, 2 or 4 person privvys.

Between the drawings, photos, documentation and ICC records in the SRHA collections, some serious research is possible.

Note the Bill of Materials on the drawing. Local B&B gangs were expected to construct all types of building, sheds, etc. In some cases the Stores Dept. would load everything in a box car and send it to be built on site.

Ike





On May 7, 2020, at 4:30 PM, Carl Ardrey <carlardrey2005@...> wrote:

The property was divided in MOW territories called sections, usually 10-12 miles.  The MOW forces were housed in company houses to ensure their availability to being called out. The 4-room house is the foreman's house, equipped with a company phone, and the 2-room houses were for laborers.
CEA
On May 6, 2020 at 10:49 AM A&Y Dave in MD <dbott@...> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone help me?

I have been having fun searching through and understanding materials I have collected from the ICC valuation documents at the National Archives.  I live much closer to them than to the SRHA archives in Chattanooga :-(

I noted that the ICC designated structures by "Type" based upon the engineer's assessment of materials, design, and dimensions.  One category of structures was termed "Section Dwelling" and on the CF line there were two types (XII and XI) referring to a 4 room and a 2 room version.   See attached examples from Dalton, NC used by the ICC engineer to illustrate the 'types' for Val section 27.  As an aside, I love the engineer's notes talking about materials and construction techniques.  This could be useful to restoration of existing structures (Tim Carroll found the description of a lever car shed useful for that purpose) and of some use to modelers (at the risk of mentioning that on the wrong list).

Does anyone know how these would have been used?  Did the Southern consider them bunkhouses?  Or perhaps they were for section foremen to live in?  The photos and descriptions I have do not suggest they were used for family living.   These are the times that I wished I lived closer to Chattanooga and TVRM, sigh.  I'd be happy to write up an article for TIES about these interesting but often overlooked structures (as well as the tool houses and lever car shed) found on the CF line, if I had the details.

Dave Bott

P.S. I created a Group on Facebook to address the history of the Atlantic & Yadkin Railway, and I have been pleasantly surprised at the interest levels by people and all the historical information being collected and shared by folks other than me.  I've had a website on the A&Y for 15 years and am surprised how little people were aware of the depth of information in it. FB has increased awareness of the information, even though there are LOTS of concerns about FB.  By creating a focused group with control over membership, I can stay away from distracting and immaterial posts, but we can connect to the pages and groups dedicated to local and regional history. There is a Greensboro history group and a Chatham county group that have been particularly interesting and useful.  Not every one of the 130+ members  is interested in railroads, but they often have materials and photos that are relevant.  I mention this not to convince anyone to visit or create a FB group, but just in case you are interested in learning more about the history of the A&Y or the Piedmont region of North Carolina (which includes Winston-Salem as well as Greensboro and the A&Y).  Here's a link if this interests you:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/511566893131280

--

Sent from David Bott's desktop pc

 


locked Re: structures--specifically "section dwellings" -- how were they used?

Carl Ardrey
 

The property was divided in MOW territories called sections, usually 10-12 miles.  The MOW forces were housed in company houses to ensure their availability to being called out. The 4-room house is the foreman's house, equipped with a company phone, and the 2-room houses were for laborers.
CEA

On May 6, 2020 at 10:49 AM A&Y Dave in MD <dbott@...> wrote:

Hi all,

Can anyone help me?

I have been having fun searching through and understanding materials I have collected from the ICC valuation documents at the National Archives.  I live much closer to them than to the SRHA archives in Chattanooga :-(

I noted that the ICC designated structures by "Type" based upon the engineer's assessment of materials, design, and dimensions.  One category of structures was termed "Section Dwelling" and on the CF line there were two types (XII and XI) referring to a 4 room and a 2 room version.   See attached examples from Dalton, NC used by the ICC engineer to illustrate the 'types' for Val section 27.  As an aside, I love the engineer's notes talking about materials and construction techniques.  This could be useful to restoration of existing structures (Tim Carroll found the description of a lever car shed useful for that purpose) and of some use to modelers (at the risk of mentioning that on the wrong list).

Does anyone know how these would have been used?  Did the Southern consider them bunkhouses?  Or perhaps they were for section foremen to live in?  The photos and descriptions I have do not suggest they were used for family living.   These are the times that I wished I lived closer to Chattanooga and TVRM, sigh.  I'd be happy to write up an article for TIES about these interesting but often overlooked structures (as well as the tool houses and lever car shed) found on the CF line, if I had the details.

Dave Bott

P.S. I created a Group on Facebook to address the history of the Atlantic & Yadkin Railway, and I have been pleasantly surprised at the interest levels by people and all the historical information being collected and shared by folks other than me.  I've had a website on the A&Y for 15 years and am surprised how little people were aware of the depth of information in it. FB has increased awareness of the information, even though there are LOTS of concerns about FB.  By creating a focused group with control over membership, I can stay away from distracting and immaterial posts, but we can connect to the pages and groups dedicated to local and regional history. There is a Greensboro history group and a Chatham county group that have been particularly interesting and useful.  Not every one of the 130+ members  is interested in railroads, but they often have materials and photos that are relevant.  I mention this not to convince anyone to visit or create a FB group, but just in case you are interested in learning more about the history of the A&Y or the Piedmont region of North Carolina (which includes Winston-Salem as well as Greensboro and the A&Y).  Here's a link if this interests you:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/511566893131280

--

Sent from David Bott's desktop pc

 


locked May Archives Work Session Cancelled

Jim Thurston
 

The SRHA Archives Work Session for 15-16 May 2020 has been cancelled


locked structures--specifically "section dwellings" -- how were they used?

A&Y Dave in MD
 

Hi all,

Can anyone help me?

I have been having fun searching through and understanding materials I have collected from the ICC valuation documents at the National Archives.  I live much closer to them than to the SRHA archives in Chattanooga :-(

I noted that the ICC designated structures by "Type" based upon the engineer's assessment of materials, design, and dimensions.  One category of structures was termed "Section Dwelling" and on the CF line there were two types (XII and XI) referring to a 4 room and a 2 room version.   See attached examples from Dalton, NC used by the ICC engineer to illustrate the 'types' for Val section 27.  As an aside, I love the engineer's notes talking about materials and construction techniques.  This could be useful to restoration of existing structures (Tim Carroll found the description of a lever car shed useful for that purpose) and of some use to modelers (at the risk of mentioning that on the wrong list).

Does anyone know how these would have been used?  Did the Southern consider them bunkhouses?  Or perhaps they were for section foremen to live in?  The photos and descriptions I have do not suggest they were used for family living.   These are the times that I wished I lived closer to Chattanooga and TVRM, sigh.  I'd be happy to write up an article for TIES about these interesting but often overlooked structures (as well as the tool houses and lever car shed) found on the CF line, if I had the details.

Dave Bott

P.S. I created a Group on Facebook to address the history of the Atlantic & Yadkin Railway, and I have been pleasantly surprised at the interest levels by people and all the historical information being collected and shared by folks other than me.  I've had a website on the A&Y for 15 years and am surprised how little people were aware of the depth of information in it. FB has increased awareness of the information, even though there are LOTS of concerns about FB.  By creating a focused group with control over membership, I can stay away from distracting and immaterial posts, but we can connect to the pages and groups dedicated to local and regional history. There is a Greensboro history group and a Chatham county group that have been particularly interesting and useful.  Not every one of the 130+ members  is interested in railroads, but they often have materials and photos that are relevant.  I mention this not to convince anyone to visit or create a FB group, but just in case you are interested in learning more about the history of the A&Y or the Piedmont region of North Carolina (which includes Winston-Salem as well as Greensboro and the A&Y).  Here's a link if this interests you:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/511566893131280

--

Sent from David Bott's desktop pc


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

Robert Graham
 

Fenton,

I checked and found I have a couple of the LifeLike SOU 50 ft doubledoor end door equipped auto boxcars. As you have been assisting with questions on the suitability of these cars as accurate SOU models, but indicated you were not familiar withthese models, I took the liberty of unboxing and photographing them, along with the portion of the instruction sheet that provides specific steps for modelers to more accurately represent specific named RR's. The SOU cars are included in these specific modification steps.

I hope these 5 poor cell phone photos give a little more light to these cars and LifeLike's model kits.

Bob Graham  

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

From: "O Fenton Wells"
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io
Cc:
Sent: Tuesday May 5 2020 9:05:59AM
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

Are these the P2K kits?  The first SR 50 ft DD boxcars were 10'-0" IH and you have to kit bash these.  Theo others can be made with the P2K kit see attached chart.
Also attached is a photo of 2 50 boxcars (Bob's Photos) showing different side sill arrangements.  The first one 39242 was taken in the early '50's as can be seen by the reweigh date.  This car has pretty much the original side sills.  as the cars aged they added bracing as can be seen by the second photo (1955 or later) of 39592 with the added side sill.  Depending on the era you model you need to be aware of the side sill length and depth.
Hope this helps
Fenton

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Ken Vandevoort via groups.io <apo09324=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I have two of the 50' Automobile Box Car kits SOU 42010 and 42022.  I don't know if they are accurate, but this is what the instructions say: "For this prototype, four roads had straight side sills (CB&Q, NKP, SRR, SP) and two roads had notched side sills (ATSF & NYC).  The body is correct for the straight side sill version; if you are modeling CB&Q, NKP, SRR or SP no modification to the body is needed."

Ken Vandevoort



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

Byron Osborn
 

Ike, the link leads to an email to be sent.  what is the link to the subgroup.


locked Re: ModelingTheSouthern group

George Eichelberger
 

Brian:

Thanks! That URL to join has eluded me….Thanks again!

Ike


On May 5, 2020, at 11:59 AM, Brian Clark <brian.ag4bc@...> wrote:

Tim
Brian
 
From: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> on behalf of Tim <tarumph@...>
Reply-To: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 11:44 AM
To: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Subject: [SouthernRailway] ModelingTheSouthern group
 
Ike referred me to the ModelingTheSouthern@... for modeling topics on our favorite railroad. I sent a message to that address, but got a delivery failure, "Address not found."

I prefer to use these groups through the web interface. I've got all my e-mails turned off except for special notices. I can't find this group there. How to get to it?

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC 



locked Re: ModelingTheSouthern group

Tim
 

Thanks Brian. That did it. :)

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: ModelingTheSouthern group

Brian Clark
 

Tim

Try https://southernrailway.groups.io/g/ModelingTheSouthern

Brian

 

From: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> on behalf of Tim <tarumph@...>
Reply-To: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Date: Tuesday, May 5, 2020 at 11:44 AM
To: "main@SouthernRailway.groups.io" <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Subject: [SouthernRailway] ModelingTheSouthern group

 

Ike referred me to the ModelingTheSouthern@... for modeling topics on our favorite railroad. I sent a message to that address, but got a delivery failure, "Address not found."

I prefer to use these groups through the web interface. I've got all my e-mails turned off except for special notices. I can't find this group there. How to get to it?

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked ModelingTheSouthern group

Tim
 

Ike referred me to the ModelingTheSouthern@... for modeling topics on our favorite railroad. I sent a message to that address, but got a delivery failure, "Address not found."

I prefer to use these groups through the web interface. I've got all my e-mails turned off except for special notices. I can't find this group there. How to get to it?

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

George Eichelberger
 

Tim:

Quite true, “ModelingTheSouthern@groups.io” is a subgroup. I don’t like the .io set-up as the subgroup is not obvious. You have to join them separately.

I am both a modeler and a “historic” type. We know the modelers always feel a bit out of the loop with historical groups and societies and the non-modelers may not be interested in less than 12”/1’. Us having two groups let us work with both…

Ike


On May 5, 2020, at 9:57 AM, Tim <tarumph@...> wrote:

Is there a seperate modeling group here on groups.io? The title of this group, if you look at the Home page is:

Southern Railway Historical and Modeling Information Interchange

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

Tim
 

Is there a seperate modeling group here on groups.io? The title of this group, if you look at the Home page is:

Southern Railway Historical and Modeling Information Interchange

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

George Eichelberger
 

Could we try to direct modeling questions, comments and answers to the "ModelingTheSouthern" group? I responded on that group rather than here on the "prototype" SR group.

Ike


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

O Fenton Wells
 

Are these the P2K kits?  The first SR 50 ft DD boxcars were 10'-0" IH and you have to kit bash these.  Theo others can be made with the P2K kit see attached chart.
Also attached is a photo of 2 50 boxcars (Bob's Photos) showing different side sill arrangements.  The first one 39242 was taken in the early '50's as can be seen by the reweigh date.  This car has pretty much the original side sills.  as the cars aged they added bracing as can be seen by the second photo (1955 or later) of 39592 with the added side sill.  Depending on the era you model you need to be aware of the side sill length and depth.
Hope this helps
Fenton

On Mon, May 4, 2020 at 7:50 PM Ken Vandevoort via groups.io <apo09324=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
I have two of the 50' Automobile Box Car kits SOU 42010 and 42022.  I don't know if they are accurate, but this is what the instructions say: "For this prototype, four roads had straight side sills (CB&Q, NKP, SRR, SP) and two roads had notched side sills (ATSF & NYC).  The body is correct for the straight side sill version; if you are modeling CB&Q, NKP, SRR or SP no modification to the body is needed."

Ken Vandevoort



--
Fenton Wells
250 Frye Rd
Pinehurst NC 28374
910-420-8106
srrfan1401@...


locked Re: Proto2000 Southern Boxcars

Ken Vandevoort <apo09324@...>
 

I have two of the 50' Automobile Box Car kits SOU 42010 and 42022.  I don't know if they are accurate, but this is what the instructions say: "For this prototype, four roads had straight side sills (CB&Q, NKP, SRR, SP) and two roads had notched side sills (ATSF & NYC).  The body is correct for the straight side sill version; if you are modeling CB&Q, NKP, SRR or SP no modification to the body is needed."

Ken Vandevoort

841 - 860 of 1899