Date   

locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

Ike,

I believe that the Buhoup vestibule was a wide vestibule design. The vestibule in your drawing of the Southern Railway coach is a Pullman narrow. See attached. Pullman narrow vestibules were specified in the contract dated December 17, 1894 between Southern Railway and Pullman Palace car Company, lot 2089 for 2 vestibuled coaches <nos. 1200-1201>.

Jack Wyatt

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 03:44:41 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:





Joel:

Another good subject for research!

The only thing I can say for sure about “smoking rooms” is that they were only in the “gents” end of the car during this time period. I expect that corresponded to the social mores of the time.

The filename does not say “floor plan” so I did not find/post it earlier. I’ve attached a much reduced size and resolution scan of drawing 2-A-17 dated April 17, 1895 of a standard 57’ coach that includes a floor plan.

The drawing may (!) be in the same category I mentioned earlier but in any case, it is a “work of art” on its own. (Note: it is a very early example of a car with a closed (Beauhop?) vestibule.)

Ike


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

When the Vestibule Limited was wrecked at Bluff City, Tennessee in October 1894, two coaches were destroyed. Southern Railway ordered two coaches from Pullman on an expedited basis using  spec's from Pullman. These coaches became Nos. 1200-1201. Southern liked the coaches so much that they sent No. 1200 to DC and had a draftsman make drawings of the car to be to be used in future requests for bids. See attached memo's. This drawing would be of No. 1200. The design with minor modifications became Southern's standard coach until 1901 when the coach design was lengthen from 57' to 66' over end sills.

Jack Wyatt

On Tuesday, September 22, 2020, 03:44:41 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:





Joel:

Another good subject for research!

The only thing I can say for sure about “smoking rooms” is that they were only in the “gents” end of the car during this time period. I expect that corresponded to the social mores of the time.

The filename does not say “floor plan” so I did not find/post it earlier. I’ve attached a much reduced size and resolution scan of drawing 2-A-17 dated April 17, 1895 of a standard 57’ coach that includes a floor plan.

The drawing may (!) be in the same category I mentioned earlier but in any case, it is a “work of art” on its own. (Note: it is a very early example of a car with a closed (Beauhop?) vestibule.)

Ike



On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:

Ike,
Question about the P and B car.  I noticed in the diagram that there is a smoking room. If the car was also serving as 2nd class accommodations, was smoking only allowed in the smoking room?  Twenty years prior, in an 1879 Civil Rights case on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad (Robinson v. M & C RR), the second-class car is referred to as the 'smoking car' which would imply the passengers were emitting about as much smoke as the engine was (an exaggeration). Any idea on what the policy on smoking was in 1900?
Joel

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:40 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Joel:

I’m sure the drawing is representative of Southern “combines” of the period but it should not be associated with any specific order or car numbers without more research.

When I first started assembling the drawings and data to produce the Southern wood and steel frame freight car passenger car era books, I attempted to “match” the various General Arrangement drawings in the SRHA archives with specific cars, or series of cars. The Gen. Arrt. drawings of that period tend to include notes and drawing lists that evolved onto different drawings by about 1910-12. It was only by noting drawings listed in the Specs issued by the railroad and comparing that list to the “as built” drawings in the Card Lists (P-Cards) I realized that what had been sent out by the railroad may/may not have been what the car builder actually offered to build.

Part of the reason for differences between the spec and as-built designs came down to the Southern’s desire to maintain as small an inventory of repair parts as possible, to provide parts (new or used) out of its own stocks or to purchase items in bulk for better prices. I did not think of items such as wood for center or side sills as being a “part” but the Southern did. There are multiple pieces of correspondence with car builders discussing the finished size and type of wood they wanted to use vs the specified material. One thing the car builders absolutely hated was that the Southern would have “specialties” such as trucks or brake equipment shipped from its own inventory or drop shipped from the manufacturer on a Southern purchase order.

In other cases, the Southern just wanted to know current prices or what alternates the car builders could offer, a drawing may not be associated with any cars actually purchased.

Southern freight car orders of the time tended to come in groups of cars from any number of builders. In advance of those car orders, the Southern would negotiate prices on the combined quantities of third-party hardware; trucks and brakes were most common, to be used in the new cars. Car specialties were like radios in 1950s automobiles…the dealer wanted to sell them as an add-on to make additional profit. Problem for them was…are they going to “no bid” an order for 500-1,000-1,500 cars?

Ike


On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:

Ike,
Thanks for the scans. The diagram, especially, is useful.
Joel








locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

George Eichelberger
 

Joel:

Another good subject for research!

The only thing I can say for sure about “smoking rooms” is that they were only in the “gents” end of the car during this time period. I expect that corresponded to the social mores of the time.

The filename does not say “floor plan” so I did not find/post it earlier. I’ve attached a much reduced size and resolution scan of drawing 2-A-17 dated April 17, 1895 of a standard 57’ coach that includes a floor plan.

The drawing may (!) be in the same category I mentioned earlier but in any case, it is a “work of art” on its own. (Note: it is a very early example of a car with a closed (Beauhop?) vestibule.)

Ike



On Sep 22, 2020, at 11:01 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:

Ike,
Question about the P and B car.  I noticed in the diagram that there is a smoking room. If the car was also serving as 2nd class accommodations, was smoking only allowed in the smoking room?  Twenty years prior, in an 1879 Civil Rights case on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad (Robinson v. M & C RR), the second-class car is referred to as the 'smoking car' which would imply the passengers were emitting about as much smoke as the engine was (an exaggeration). Any idea on what the policy on smoking was in 1900?
Joel

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:40 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Joel:

I’m sure the drawing is representative of Southern “combines” of the period but it should not be associated with any specific order or car numbers without more research.

When I first started assembling the drawings and data to produce the Southern wood and steel frame freight car passenger car era books, I attempted to “match” the various General Arrangement drawings in the SRHA archives with specific cars, or series of cars. The Gen. Arrt. drawings of that period tend to include notes and drawing lists that evolved onto different drawings by about 1910-12. It was only by noting drawings listed in the Specs issued by the railroad and comparing that list to the “as built” drawings in the Card Lists (P-Cards) I realized that what had been sent out by the railroad may/may not have been what the car builder actually offered to build.

Part of the reason for differences between the spec and as-built designs came down to the Southern’s desire to maintain as small an inventory of repair parts as possible, to provide parts (new or used) out of its own stocks or to purchase items in bulk for better prices. I did not think of items such as wood for center or side sills as being a “part” but the Southern did. There are multiple pieces of correspondence with car builders discussing the finished size and type of wood they wanted to use vs the specified material. One thing the car builders absolutely hated was that the Southern would have “specialties” such as trucks or brake equipment shipped from its own inventory or drop shipped from the manufacturer on a Southern purchase order.

In other cases, the Southern just wanted to know current prices or what alternates the car builders could offer, a drawing may not be associated with any cars actually purchased.

Southern freight car orders of the time tended to come in groups of cars from any number of builders. In advance of those car orders, the Southern would negotiate prices on the combined quantities of third-party hardware; trucks and brakes were most common, to be used in the new cars. Car specialties were like radios in 1950s automobiles…the dealer wanted to sell them as an add-on to make additional profit. Problem for them was…are they going to “no bid” an order for 500-1,000-1,500 cars?

Ike


On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:

Ike,
Thanks for the scans. The diagram, especially, is useful.
Joel









locked Railway Mail Service on SR April 1949 vs April 1950

George Eichelberger
 

Sunday’s quick trip to the archives produced a Presidents’ file on the Railway Mail Service I've not seen before. The file is only post-war data but appears to show increasing mail traffic, and revenues from 1947 into the early 50s.

A comparison of mail services between April 1949 and April 1950 is attached. In addition to providing a comprehensive list of Southern trains that carried mail, it shows how important the revenue was from those trains. (The list does not distinguish between storage mail and RPO services. Discontinuing passenger trains and losing mail revenues was of concern to the railroad. The question disappeared as the Post Office shifted mail to trucks.)

This is clearly a subject that needs to be researched!

Ike





locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Joel Walker
 

Ike,
Question about the P and B car.  I noticed in the diagram that there is a smoking room. If the car was also serving as 2nd class accommodations, was smoking only allowed in the smoking room?  Twenty years prior, in an 1879 Civil Rights case on the Memphis and Charleston Railroad (Robinson v. M & C RR), the second-class car is referred to as the 'smoking car' which would imply the passengers were emitting about as much smoke as the engine was (an exaggeration). Any idea on what the policy on smoking was in 1900?
Joel

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 9:40 AM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Joel:

I’m sure the drawing is representative of Southern “combines” of the period but it should not be associated with any specific order or car numbers without more research.

When I first started assembling the drawings and data to produce the Southern wood and steel frame freight car passenger car era books, I attempted to “match” the various General Arrangement drawings in the SRHA archives with specific cars, or series of cars. The Gen. Arrt. drawings of that period tend to include notes and drawing lists that evolved onto different drawings by about 1910-12. It was only by noting drawings listed in the Specs issued by the railroad and comparing that list to the “as built” drawings in the Card Lists (P-Cards) I realized that what had been sent out by the railroad may/may not have been what the car builder actually offered to build.

Part of the reason for differences between the spec and as-built designs came down to the Southern’s desire to maintain as small an inventory of repair parts as possible, to provide parts (new or used) out of its own stocks or to purchase items in bulk for better prices. I did not think of items such as wood for center or side sills as being a “part” but the Southern did. There are multiple pieces of correspondence with car builders discussing the finished size and type of wood they wanted to use vs the specified material. One thing the car builders absolutely hated was that the Southern would have “specialties” such as trucks or brake equipment shipped from its own inventory or drop shipped from the manufacturer on a Southern purchase order.

In other cases, the Southern just wanted to know current prices or what alternates the car builders could offer, a drawing may not be associated with any cars actually purchased.

Southern freight car orders of the time tended to come in groups of cars from any number of builders. In advance of those car orders, the Southern would negotiate prices on the combined quantities of third-party hardware; trucks and brakes were most common, to be used in the new cars. Car specialties were like radios in 1950s automobiles…the dealer wanted to sell them as an add-on to make additional profit. Problem for them was…are they going to “no bid” an order for 500-1,000-1,500 cars?

Ike


On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:

Ike,
Thanks for the scans. The diagram, especially, is useful.
Joel








locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

George Eichelberger
 

Joel:

I’m sure the drawing is representative of Southern “combines” of the period but it should not be associated with any specific order or car numbers without more research.

When I first started assembling the drawings and data to produce the Southern wood and steel frame freight car passenger car era books, I attempted to “match” the various General Arrangement drawings in the SRHA archives with specific cars, or series of cars. The Gen. Arrt. drawings of that period tend to include notes and drawing lists that evolved onto different drawings by about 1910-12. It was only by noting drawings listed in the Specs issued by the railroad and comparing that list to the “as built” drawings in the Card Lists (P-Cards) I realized that what had been sent out by the railroad may/may not have been what the car builder actually offered to build.

Part of the reason for differences between the spec and as-built designs came down to the Southern’s desire to maintain as small an inventory of repair parts as possible, to provide parts (new or used) out of its own stocks or to purchase items in bulk for better prices. I did not think of items such as wood for center or side sills as being a “part” but the Southern did. There are multiple pieces of correspondence with car builders discussing the finished size and type of wood they wanted to use vs the specified material. One thing the car builders absolutely hated was that the Southern would have “specialties” such as trucks or brake equipment shipped from its own inventory or drop shipped from the manufacturer on a Southern purchase order.

In other cases, the Southern just wanted to know current prices or what alternates the car builders could offer, a drawing may not be associated with any cars actually purchased.

Southern freight car orders of the time tended to come in groups of cars from any number of builders. In advance of those car orders, the Southern would negotiate prices on the combined quantities of third-party hardware; trucks and brakes were most common, to be used in the new cars. Car specialties were like radios in 1950s automobiles…the dealer wanted to sell them as an add-on to make additional profit. Problem for them was…are they going to “no bid” an order for 500-1,000-1,500 cars?

Ike

On Sep 22, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:

Ike,
Thanks for the scans. The diagram, especially, is useful.
Joel


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Joel Walker
 

Ike,
Thanks for the scans. The diagram, especially, is useful.
Joel

On Sat, Sep 19, 2020 at 12:03 AM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
Joel, 

Thank you for sharing that information. Interesting project!

The annual report for fiscal year 1900 ending June 30, 1900 shows 9 passenger cars being retired that year which should include the two wrecked cars. I wonder if any SRHA files have the car numbers?

Jack 


On Friday, September 18, 2020, 09:57:17 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:





Since Jack asked, I'm not modeling a 1900 Southern train but am working on a book (historical fiction) built around the Camp Creek wreck north of McDonough, Georgia in June of 1900. I have found multiple newspaper accounts (local and national) and have read all thirty of the federal court cases involving the wreck. I have also done genealogical research on most of the victims and the survivors. I know exactly who was on the Pullman Sleeper (the Giraldo) and have a good handle on what the interior was like since all the survivors were on the Sleeper.  But I don't have a lot of information on the first-class day coach or the combination car. 'Little things,' like getting the numbers of the cars correct (at least in the ball park) and what the interiors were like will help me flesh out the story so what all of you have shared with me will be useful.  
Thanks, again.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
> Joel,
>
> Look at this site for a source of early Southern Rwy. passenger car diagrams:
>
> http://southern.railfan.net/
>
> Select "Southern Documents", next "Passenger and Business Car Diagrams", and finally "Passenger Car Diagrams 1913".
>
> Are you intending to model a circa 1900 Southern Railway passenger train? If so, are you scratch-building the cars or just looking for ones which are "close"?
>
> I'll be happy to discuss further. 
>
> Jack Wyatt
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Friday, September 18, 2020, 04:25:31 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Jack,
> Your information was exactly what I was looking for! 
> Thanks.
> Joel
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
>> Joel,
>>
>> The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.
>>
>> Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.
>>
>> First class passenger cars were 900-1075.
>>
>> Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.
>>
>> I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.
>>
>> Hope this helps.
>>
>> Jack Wyatt
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
>> Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
>> Any help would be appreciated.
>> Thanks.
>> Joel Walker
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

Joel, 

Thank you for sharing that information. Interesting project!

The annual report for fiscal year 1900 ending June 30, 1900 shows 9 passenger cars being retired that year which should include the two wrecked cars. I wonder if any SRHA files have the car numbers?

Jack

On Friday, September 18, 2020, 09:57:17 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Since Jack asked, I'm not modeling a 1900 Southern train but am working on a book (historical fiction) built around the Camp Creek wreck north of McDonough, Georgia in June of 1900. I have found multiple newspaper accounts (local and national) and have read all thirty of the federal court cases involving the wreck. I have also done genealogical research on most of the victims and the survivors. I know exactly who was on the Pullman Sleeper (the Giraldo) and have a good handle on what the interior was like since all the survivors were on the Sleeper.  But I don't have a lot of information on the first-class day coach or the combination car. 'Little things,' like getting the numbers of the cars correct (at least in the ball park) and what the interiors were like will help me flesh out the story so what all of you have shared with me will be useful.  
Thanks, again.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Joel,

Look at this site for a source of early Southern Rwy. passenger car diagrams:

http://southern.railfan.net/

Select "Southern Documents", next "Passenger and Business Car Diagrams", and finally "Passenger Car Diagrams 1913".

Are you intending to model a circa 1900 Southern Railway passenger train? If so, are you scratch-building the cars or just looking for ones which are "close"?

I'll be happy to discuss further. 

Jack Wyatt






On Friday, September 18, 2020, 04:25:31 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Jack,
Your information was exactly what I was looking for! 
Thanks.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Joel,

The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.

Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.

First class passenger cars were 900-1075.

Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.

I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.

Hope this helps.

Jack Wyatt







On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker
















locked Speaking of turntables

Allen Cain
 

This may be too wide of a question but would appreciate input on the length of the bridges on the various Southern turntables just prior to dieselization in the early 1950s.

Thanks

Allen Cain


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Joel Walker
 

Since Jack asked, I'm not modeling a 1900 Southern train but am working on a book (historical fiction) built around the Camp Creek wreck north of McDonough, Georgia in June of 1900. I have found multiple newspaper accounts (local and national) and have read all thirty of the federal court cases involving the wreck. I have also done genealogical research on most of the victims and the survivors. I know exactly who was on the Pullman Sleeper (the Giraldo) and have a good handle on what the interior was like since all the survivors were on the Sleeper.  But I don't have a lot of information on the first-class day coach or the combination car. 'Little things,' like getting the numbers of the cars correct (at least in the ball park) and what the interiors were like will help me flesh out the story so what all of you have shared with me will be useful.  
Thanks, again.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 5:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
Joel,

Look at this site for a source of early Southern Rwy. passenger car diagrams:

http://southern.railfan.net/

Select "Southern Documents", next "Passenger and Business Car Diagrams", and finally "Passenger Car Diagrams 1913".

Are you intending to model a circa 1900 Southern Railway passenger train? If so, are you scratch-building the cars or just looking for ones which are "close"?

I'll be happy to discuss further. 

Jack Wyatt






On Friday, September 18, 2020, 04:25:31 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:





Jack,
Your information was exactly what I was looking for! 
Thanks.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
> Joel,
>
> The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.
>
> Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.
>
> First class passenger cars were 900-1075.
>
> Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.
>
> I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Jack Wyatt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
> Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
> Any help would be appreciated.
> Thanks.
> Joel Walker
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>









locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

Ike,

the combined baggage - coach cars continued into the 600 series.

As I already posted, the new first class coaches started at 1200. Southern did have an order from Pullman in early 1901 which backfilled 1179-1185 in the predecessor series for first class coaches starting at 900.

Combines 575-578 were ordered from Pullman on December 11, 1896 and are probably related to the floor plan which you posted.

Jack

On Friday, September 18, 2020, 05:30:40 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:


In general we can say around 1900, Southern P&Bs were numbered in the 500 and 600 series, full coaches were in the 600,  series and continued up from there into the 1300s and 1400s by thge 1920 and 30s.

Ike


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

Joel,

Look at this site for a source of early Southern Rwy. passenger car diagrams:

http://southern.railfan.net/

Select "Southern Documents", next "Passenger and Business Car Diagrams", and finally "Passenger Car Diagrams 1913".

Are you intending to model a circa 1900 Southern Railway passenger train? If so, are you scratch-building the cars or just looking for ones which are "close"?

I'll be happy to discuss further. 

Jack Wyatt

On Friday, September 18, 2020, 04:25:31 PM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Jack,
Your information was exactly what I was looking for! 
Thanks.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@bellsouth.net> wrote:
Joel,

The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.

Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.

First class passenger cars were 900-1075.

Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.

I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.

Hope this helps.

Jack Wyatt







On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker









locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

George Eichelberger
 

Sorry for the delay responding, this is not a simple answer

I have not located a high quality scanned version of a turn of the century Southern coach floor plan. For a stand-in, I’ve attached a reduced resolution scan of Southern drawing 2-B-9 drawn March 6, 1896 of a “65’Combination Pass Car”. (I recall the original linen is what the scan was made from.)

A characteristic of drawings of the period was they described cars a drawing referred to only by the length of the car, not individual car numbers. That can be a problem because all 65’ P&Bs were not the same. I’ve included a small snippet from a passenger car data base (10,841 total entries). Note the date range (probably estimates when ther ICC Val study was done, recirds from 1865 probably never made to the Southern's files). Even this small sample of cars probably came from different predecessor railroads and car builders. We have no way of knowing which of these cars the drawing represented.

Sou
573

12/31/24
P&B all wood 43' 0" M&B 1870
Sou
575

01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
578

01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
579

01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
580

01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
581

01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
582


P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
582


P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
585
600
01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
586


P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
587
602
01/01/28
P&B all wood 65' 0" various builders 1865-1901
Sou
575
604
06/30/24
passenger & baggage (under 70’)

Actually, the drawing may NOT have represented ANY cars the Southern owned. During this period, the Southern produced its own car design drawings and sent them to carbuilders for quotes. The design could have changed, or been replaced alltogether with a selected builder’s design. Here’s the drawing…..


Your basic question is really (!) hard to answer…how were the cars numbered?
The answer needs to start by reminding everyone that in 1900, the Southern’s rolling stock was a conglomeration of many railroads equipment from the Richmond Terminal bankruptcy.

The ICC Valuation study attempted to include as-built or prior car numbers IF they were known.
The following is a digital photo of a page from ledgers I borrowed from the SE Railroad Museum (Atlanta Chap, NRHS) years ago. (Originally from Pegram Shop, donated by Mr. Bill Purdy, I believe). It is also from the ICC Val Study and provides whatever data that was available, or could be estimated. Note the three left columns, the third shows “system numbers”, those represent the new Southern system. Hard to read but the second column shows some prior numbers. (Note to Jason Greene, I’d like to see someone make good quality scans of those ledgers before they fall apart, I only had access to them for a few days, thus the photos.) 

In general we can say around 1900, Southern P&Bs were numbered in the 500 and 600 series, full coaches were in the 600,  series and continued up from there into the 1300s and 1400s by thge 1920 and 30s.

Ike



On Sep 18, 2020, at 11:18 AM, Jason Greene <jason.p.greene@...> wrote:

The Archives have some drawing from pre-Southern equipment as well as some of the first Southern drawings from the turn of the century. 

Jason Greene 

On Sep 17, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:


Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker


locked Re: Black SOU 4-8-2s in the 1940s

Kevin Centers
 

Ike,

Whereas I agree that many of the lower level ICC accounts aren’t very interesting (replace 100# rail with 110# rail), many of them list the tracks they are related to. So many times you can determine tracks that were built for operations and customers that are no longer there. It also gives the reader a good date for when those tracks were constructed and/or removed. Much of the data is boring dollars, but Southern and many of the predecessors were very good about itemizing their completion reports, which allows you to determine track length. 

Kevin



On Sep 18, 2020, at 2:24 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:


Kev:

Thanks..that’s my guess but the Athens, GA Acct 20 example didn’t include a turntable. I think (!) Frank Greene and I scanned all of the summaries but we have to remember, they only cover what existed 1916-26 when the Val study was first conducted. All of the updates have never been inventoried so we cannot guarantee we have every segment update for every year. (The originals are all in the ICC archives in MD.) We also have the field notes used to create the summaries. Some include nicely done depot and structure sketches.)

As you know, there was a lot of disagreement about Val data after everything was submitted in 1926. Most of the pages have a note about 1932. I think (!) that was after the arguments were over and the Govt accepted the 1916-1926 numbers as final? (We have CofG filings as well..not inventoried except I scanned everything for GA Val Section 1 (starts at Savannah) some time ago.) I went into Pegram Shops years ago looking for something for a fiber optic project. There were hundreds, maybe thousands, of Valuation binders there. I only had time to look at one…it was the ICC Account for velocipedes! I was “good” and put it back on the shelf, it’s certainly in the Atlanta dump now.

I have paid a lot of attention to the rolling stock Account updates (Accn’t 50 and up) over the years but not so much the fixed plant accounts, there are literally thousands of pages, in  different binders, for them in the archives.

A lot of the lower numbered account info is not of any interest (except maybe to a ballast freak) but extracting items like depots, water stations (towers), coaling towers (fuel stations) would be interesting. We have thought about publishing a series of books with photos, maybe some drawings of depots, etc. in line segment and MP order; S Line-MP 1 to Knoxville, for example. They could include photos of locos parked in front of the depot and such if we can ID locations that may not be in the photo captions. Train X, Loco Y at Depot Z would be neat. Track charts across the bottom of the page for locations might be possible. As always, it takes volunteer time to do things like that…..

Ike


On Sep 18, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@...> wrote:

Ike,

Turntables were typically accounted for in ICC 20. 

Kevin


On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:08 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

 Jack:

The Val section data for Brunswick would include any turntable info through the years, although I do not know which ICC account that would be shown under (turntables are not shown separately, shops and engine houses are Account 20?). Typically, the items in a Val Section ICC Account appear in milepost order with other Accounts shown separately, also in MP order. After the initial entries 1916-1926 changes were filed 6-30 and 12-31 every year until the early 60s.

I’ve attached a page from the Engineering Report for Val Section 55 in Georgia, it has Account 20 for Athens, GA. BUT, it's from the original 1916-1926 summary so it only shows what existed there at that time. If we assume Athens eventually had a turntable (likely), it would appear in the report the year it was installed. Note the very hard to read but useful hand written notes showing retirements. Either Engineering or Accounting people kept the summaries updated into the 1950s in many cases.

The Summaries have mostly been scanned but there are simply too many updates for us to be scanned. Making a list of water towers, coaling towers (whatever) by Val Sec and MP would be an interesting project.

Ike

<VS-55 0011.jpeg>


On Sep 17, 2020, at 5:05 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

The 99 ships built at Brunswick during WWII probably accounted for some tonnage. Naval Air Station Glynco was a big blimp base, so I guess that quite a bit of helium was used there,

I am curious what size turntable Brunswick had?

Jack






On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 04:06:35 PM EDT, george eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

No doubt you are correct but I cannot find anything in the archives (that we have scanned) to provide more information about SR Mountains to Jesup. There must be something, so we’ll keep looking.

Jesup sounds more likely than Brunswick for 4-8-2s on freight. I don’t think Brunswick was a large port during WWII needing large power. Jesup had a small yard across the ACL main from the depot that was used for interchange traffic although the trackage rights agreement put some pretty strict limits on where the freight could go. (About the only concession the SR got in the SCL merger was to allow ACL/SR interchange for long-haul traffic at Jacksonville rather than Tifton, GA.) During the War, the Southern paid as much, or more, to maintain the line based on traffic, from Hardeeville to Jacksonville as the ACL. Was the reason for the large engine on freights to Jesup for connections to SR freight trains passing Jesup on the ACL? (I will ask Sonny Riggs if he has any info.)

A “second section” article of the ACL/SR trackage rights between Hardeeville and Jax is “under construction” for a future TIES. Much more information on the original trackage rights to Yamassee, SC, Central Jct and the CofG into the port at Savannah and Jesup have been located in the SR Presidents’ files. Two pages from one item that has come to light are attached. The entire document illustrates Hardeeville-Jacksonville (actually two agreements, N and S of Savannah) was more than just trackage rights. I don’t know the “legal” meaning of “joint account” but here is the cover and sheet 18 of a document showing the track layout in detail. The entire 37 page doc could be printed or sold as an ePub if people were interested?

Ike





On Sep 17, 2020, at 12:28 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike, we are talking about Ts class engines painted black used for a limited time on a pair of freight trains between Macon and Jesup which ran at night. Interestingly, the black paint on former passenger steam engines put in freight service is only a couple of months away from the decision to paint all Southern diesels in the green scheme. If Southern wanted to present a modern image, green and gold on a steam locomotive pulling freight was0 probably not a way to convey that.

I see no reason to question Shelby Lowe on this one.

Jack Wyatt


On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 12:07:38 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

Check out the article on Jesup that ran in TIES. Note the photos of the engines at Jesup….no 4-8-2s! Would it be logical to run a Ts to Jesup, cut it off and exchange it for a Pacific for the run to Jax? The 1951 “Guide” describes the KC-Fla Spl as “diesel powered KC-Miami, the other passenger train on the Brunswick line then was the FM powered “Cracker”.

“Never say never” but maybe Sonny Riggs can comment (most of the Jesup article photos came from him). If the 4-8-2s ran through to Jacksonville, does anyone have a photo of one of them at Simpson Yd or JT?

Ike


On Sep 17, 2020, at 7:22 AM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike,

Macon -Brunswick got upgraded circa WWII. The May 12, 1946 Atlanta Division ETT shows 314,800 lbs. total weight 4-8-2 Mountain engines being allowed.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 11:07:10 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





The Southern had to use its Atlantics (4-4-2) then light Pacifics on the Brunswick line south of Macon because of the track. The Atlanta-Jacksonville train that ran on the Coast Line from Jesup exchanged engines (Ps-4s with ACL train control equipment) at Jesup for the run to J’ville. For the northbound trips the larger engine was cut off, turned and serviced by the ACL.

I suspect a Ts never operated south of Macon on the Brunswick line. Also the GS&F was not noted for heavy rail, there are quite a few photos of 4-8-2s in the SRHA archives but none of them were taken south of Macon. I realize that’s not definitive but logical considering track conditions on the GS&F. When the Southern was running the Midwestern-Fla passenger trains most went on the ACL south of Hardeeville.

Ike

PS The Florida Sunbeam article is about finished, Larry Goolsby has helped with photos of the Sunbeam on the SAL (it ran via Hampton, FL). If anyone has any photos of the train anywhere and can let us use them, that’d be great.



On Sep 16, 2020, at 7:51 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Bill,

Oscar Kimsey wrote about them in one of the issues of SRHS's Southern Rails. I think it was four or five Ts class engines in total. I don't remember whether a Ts-1 got the black treatment. If I recall, Atlanta-Brunswick was one of the routes which they were used on.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 06:33:12 PM EDT, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:





In the SRHA Archives, we have photographs of at least two Ts-class Mountains, 1453 and 1454, in black paint with dog houses on the tender decks. These are the only two 4-8-2s I know of that got the black treatment in the 1940s. In each case, "Southern" was spelled out on the tender sides instead of large numerals typical of freight engines.

Questions:

* Does anyone know of any other SOU Mountains that were painted black just before dieselization?
* Has anyone seen photos of any black Mountains with large numerals on the tenders?
* Does anyone have a photo to share of black 4-8-2s from the 1940s other than 1453 and 1454?
* What service were the black 4-8-2s used in? We have seen a photo of 1454 (black) on a head-end heavy passenger train but none in freight service.

Of course, I haven't been to the Archives recently. It's possible more photos of black 4-8-2s have been unearthed and I just don't know about them.

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer


































<VS-55 0011.jpeg>


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Joel Walker
 

Jack,
Your information was exactly what I was looking for! 
Thanks.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 2:12 PM C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:
Joel,

The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.

Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.

First class passenger cars were 900-1075.

Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.

I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.

Hope this helps.

Jack Wyatt







On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:





Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker









locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Joel Walker
 

Jason,
Thanks for the information.  Off the top of your head, would you know what record group the drawings are in. If you don't, I have a copy of the finding aids that I can browse and get an idea where they might be.
Thanks, again.
Joel

On Fri, Sep 18, 2020 at 11:18 AM Jason Greene <jason.p.greene@...> wrote:
The Archives have some drawing from pre-Southern equipment as well as some of the first Southern drawings from the turn of the century. 

Jason Greene 

On Sep 17, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:


Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker


locked Re: Black SOU 4-8-2s in the 1940s

George Eichelberger
 

Kev:

Thanks..that’s my guess but the Athens, GA Acct 20 example didn’t include a turntable. I think (!) Frank Greene and I scanned all of the summaries but we have to remember, they only cover what existed 1916-26 when the Val study was first conducted. All of the updates have never been inventoried so we cannot guarantee we have every segment update for every year. (The originals are all in the ICC archives in MD.) We also have the field notes used to create the summaries. Some include nicely done depot and structure sketches.)

As you know, there was a lot of disagreement about Val data after everything was submitted in 1926. Most of the pages have a note about 1932. I think (!) that was after the arguments were over and the Govt accepted the 1916-1926 numbers as final? (We have CofG filings as well..not inventoried except I scanned everything for GA Val Section 1 (starts at Savannah) some time ago.) I went into Pegram Shops years ago looking for something for a fiber optic project. There were hundreds, maybe thousands, of Valuation binders there. I only had time to look at one…it was the ICC Account for velocipedes! I was “good” and put it back on the shelf, it’s certainly in the Atlanta dump now.

I have paid a lot of attention to the rolling stock Account updates (Accn’t 50 and up) over the years but not so much the fixed plant accounts, there are literally thousands of pages, in  different binders, for them in the archives.

A lot of the lower numbered account info is not of any interest (except maybe to a ballast freak) but extracting items like depots, water stations (towers), coaling towers (fuel stations) would be interesting. We have thought about publishing a series of books with photos, maybe some drawings of depots, etc. in line segment and MP order; S Line-MP 1 to Knoxville, for example. They could include photos of locos parked in front of the depot and such if we can ID locations that may not be in the photo captions. Train X, Loco Y at Depot Z would be neat. Track charts across the bottom of the page for locations might be possible. As always, it takes volunteer time to do things like that…..

Ike


On Sep 18, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@...> wrote:

Ike,

Turntables were typically accounted for in ICC 20. 

Kevin


On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:08 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

 Jack:

The Val section data for Brunswick would include any turntable info through the years, although I do not know which ICC account that would be shown under (turntables are not shown separately, shops and engine houses are Account 20?). Typically, the items in a Val Section ICC Account appear in milepost order with other Accounts shown separately, also in MP order. After the initial entries 1916-1926 changes were filed 6-30 and 12-31 every year until the early 60s.

I’ve attached a page from the Engineering Report for Val Section 55 in Georgia, it has Account 20 for Athens, GA. BUT, it's from the original 1916-1926 summary so it only shows what existed there at that time. If we assume Athens eventually had a turntable (likely), it would appear in the report the year it was installed. Note the very hard to read but useful hand written notes showing retirements. Either Engineering or Accounting people kept the summaries updated into the 1950s in many cases.

The Summaries have mostly been scanned but there are simply too many updates for us to be scanned. Making a list of water towers, coaling towers (whatever) by Val Sec and MP would be an interesting project.

Ike

<VS-55 0011.jpeg>


On Sep 17, 2020, at 5:05 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

The 99 ships built at Brunswick during WWII probably accounted for some tonnage. Naval Air Station Glynco was a big blimp base, so I guess that quite a bit of helium was used there,

I am curious what size turntable Brunswick had?

Jack






On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 04:06:35 PM EDT, george eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

No doubt you are correct but I cannot find anything in the archives (that we have scanned) to provide more information about SR Mountains to Jesup. There must be something, so we’ll keep looking.

Jesup sounds more likely than Brunswick for 4-8-2s on freight. I don’t think Brunswick was a large port during WWII needing large power. Jesup had a small yard across the ACL main from the depot that was used for interchange traffic although the trackage rights agreement put some pretty strict limits on where the freight could go. (About the only concession the SR got in the SCL merger was to allow ACL/SR interchange for long-haul traffic at Jacksonville rather than Tifton, GA.) During the War, the Southern paid as much, or more, to maintain the line based on traffic, from Hardeeville to Jacksonville as the ACL. Was the reason for the large engine on freights to Jesup for connections to SR freight trains passing Jesup on the ACL? (I will ask Sonny Riggs if he has any info.)

A “second section” article of the ACL/SR trackage rights between Hardeeville and Jax is “under construction” for a future TIES. Much more information on the original trackage rights to Yamassee, SC, Central Jct and the CofG into the port at Savannah and Jesup have been located in the SR Presidents’ files. Two pages from one item that has come to light are attached. The entire document illustrates Hardeeville-Jacksonville (actually two agreements, N and S of Savannah) was more than just trackage rights. I don’t know the “legal” meaning of “joint account” but here is the cover and sheet 18 of a document showing the track layout in detail. The entire 37 page doc could be printed or sold as an ePub if people were interested?

Ike





On Sep 17, 2020, at 12:28 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike, we are talking about Ts class engines painted black used for a limited time on a pair of freight trains between Macon and Jesup which ran at night. Interestingly, the black paint on former passenger steam engines put in freight service is only a couple of months away from the decision to paint all Southern diesels in the green scheme. If Southern wanted to present a modern image, green and gold on a steam locomotive pulling freight was0 probably not a way to convey that.

I see no reason to question Shelby Lowe on this one.

Jack Wyatt


On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 12:07:38 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

Check out the article on Jesup that ran in TIES. Note the photos of the engines at Jesup….no 4-8-2s! Would it be logical to run a Ts to Jesup, cut it off and exchange it for a Pacific for the run to Jax? The 1951 “Guide” describes the KC-Fla Spl as “diesel powered KC-Miami, the other passenger train on the Brunswick line then was the FM powered “Cracker”.

“Never say never” but maybe Sonny Riggs can comment (most of the Jesup article photos came from him). If the 4-8-2s ran through to Jacksonville, does anyone have a photo of one of them at Simpson Yd or JT?

Ike


On Sep 17, 2020, at 7:22 AM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike,

Macon -Brunswick got upgraded circa WWII. The May 12, 1946 Atlanta Division ETT shows 314,800 lbs. total weight 4-8-2 Mountain engines being allowed.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 11:07:10 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





The Southern had to use its Atlantics (4-4-2) then light Pacifics on the Brunswick line south of Macon because of the track. The Atlanta-Jacksonville train that ran on the Coast Line from Jesup exchanged engines (Ps-4s with ACL train control equipment) at Jesup for the run to J’ville. For the northbound trips the larger engine was cut off, turned and serviced by the ACL.

I suspect a Ts never operated south of Macon on the Brunswick line. Also the GS&F was not noted for heavy rail, there are quite a few photos of 4-8-2s in the SRHA archives but none of them were taken south of Macon. I realize that’s not definitive but logical considering track conditions on the GS&F. When the Southern was running the Midwestern-Fla passenger trains most went on the ACL south of Hardeeville.

Ike

PS The Florida Sunbeam article is about finished, Larry Goolsby has helped with photos of the Sunbeam on the SAL (it ran via Hampton, FL). If anyone has any photos of the train anywhere and can let us use them, that’d be great.



On Sep 16, 2020, at 7:51 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Bill,

Oscar Kimsey wrote about them in one of the issues of SRHS's Southern Rails. I think it was four or five Ts class engines in total. I don't remember whether a Ts-1 got the black treatment. If I recall, Atlanta-Brunswick was one of the routes which they were used on.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 06:33:12 PM EDT, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:





In the SRHA Archives, we have photographs of at least two Ts-class Mountains, 1453 and 1454, in black paint with dog houses on the tender decks. These are the only two 4-8-2s I know of that got the black treatment in the 1940s. In each case, "Southern" was spelled out on the tender sides instead of large numerals typical of freight engines.

Questions:

* Does anyone know of any other SOU Mountains that were painted black just before dieselization?
* Has anyone seen photos of any black Mountains with large numerals on the tenders?
* Does anyone have a photo to share of black 4-8-2s from the 1940s other than 1453 and 1454?
* What service were the black 4-8-2s used in? We have seen a photo of 1454 (black) on a head-end heavy passenger train but none in freight service.

Of course, I haven't been to the Archives recently. It's possible more photos of black 4-8-2s have been unearthed and I just don't know about them.

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer


































<VS-55 0011.jpeg>


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

C J Wyatt
 

Joel,

The original renumbering from the predecessor roads had combination passenger and baggage cars in the 500-560 series.

Second class passenger coaches (some of which did not last much longer) were 700-772.

First class passenger cars were 900-1075.

Southern Railway had a couple of first class coaches destroyed in an October 1894 wreck of the Vestibule Ltd. Pullman Palace Car got the contract for  nos. 1200-1201 to replace those cars. Southern liked the cars so it adopted them as its standard. Until 1901, this series was added to reaching 1296 or maybe a bit higher. These were 57' wood cars, but they were ordered with wide vestibules, narrow vestibules, and open platforms according to the current requirements. These are probably the coaches you need to focus on, along with some of the first and second class ones from the predecessors.

I am not sure about whether any new combines were built between 1894 and 1901. My notes are in disarray now.

Hope this helps.

Jack Wyatt

On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 11:06:43 AM EDT, Joel Walker <loneloper@gmail.com> wrote:





Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker


locked Re: Numbering of 19th Century Rolling Stock

Jason Greene
 

The Archives have some drawing from pre-Southern equipment as well as some of the first Southern drawings from the turn of the century. 

Jason Greene 

On Sep 17, 2020, at 10:13 AM, Joel Walker <loneloper@...> wrote:


Does anyone have a handle on how Southern numbered their combination cars and day coaches at the turn of the century? Pullman Sleepers, I know, had names. 
Also, is anyone aware of any diagrams the archives might have on the interior of a typical day coach around 1900?
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks.
Joel Walker


locked Re: Black SOU 4-8-2s in the 1940s

William Harley
 

There are 2 pictures in the center fold of Issue 31 of "Southern Rails" Winter 1990/1991(from 1926) of Ps-4s still in black livery with stripping. One on the Queen and Crescent Limited and the other on the Crescent Limited.
I looked out about 2 years from Issue 28 but could find no more photos of black Ts Mountains.
Cheers
Bill Harley

On Sep 18, 2020, at 7:40 AM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@...> wrote:

Ike,

Turntables were typically accounted for in ICC 20. 

Kevin


On Sep 17, 2020, at 9:08 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

 Jack:

The Val section data for Brunswick would include any turntable info through the years, although I do not know which ICC account that would be shown under (turntables are not shown separately, shops and engine houses are Account 20?). Typically, the items in a Val Section ICC Account appear in milepost order with other Accounts shown separately, also in MP order. After the initial entries 1916-1926 changes were filed 6-30 and 12-31 every year until the early 60s.

I’ve attached a page from the Engineering Report for Val Section 55 in Georgia, it has Account 20 for Athens, GA. BUT, it's from the original 1916-1926 summary so it only shows what existed there at that time. If we assume Athens eventually had a turntable (likely), it would appear in the report the year it was installed. Note the very hard to read but useful hand written notes showing retirements. Either Engineering or Accounting people kept the summaries updated into the 1950s in many cases.

The Summaries have mostly been scanned but there are simply too many updates for us to be scanned. Making a list of water towers, coaling towers (whatever) by Val Sec and MP would be an interesting project.

Ike

<VS-55 0011.jpeg>


On Sep 17, 2020, at 5:05 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

The 99 ships built at Brunswick during WWII probably accounted for some tonnage. Naval Air Station Glynco was a big blimp base, so I guess that quite a bit of helium was used there,

I am curious what size turntable Brunswick had?

Jack






On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 04:06:35 PM EDT, george eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

No doubt you are correct but I cannot find anything in the archives (that we have scanned) to provide more information about SR Mountains to Jesup. There must be something, so we’ll keep looking.

Jesup sounds more likely than Brunswick for 4-8-2s on freight. I don’t think Brunswick was a large port during WWII needing large power. Jesup had a small yard across the ACL main from the depot that was used for interchange traffic although the trackage rights agreement put some pretty strict limits on where the freight could go. (About the only concession the SR got in the SCL merger was to allow ACL/SR interchange for long-haul traffic at Jacksonville rather than Tifton, GA.) During the War, the Southern paid as much, or more, to maintain the line based on traffic, from Hardeeville to Jacksonville as the ACL. Was the reason for the large engine on freights to Jesup for connections to SR freight trains passing Jesup on the ACL? (I will ask Sonny Riggs if he has any info.)

A “second section” article of the ACL/SR trackage rights between Hardeeville and Jax is “under construction” for a future TIES. Much more information on the original trackage rights to Yamassee, SC, Central Jct and the CofG into the port at Savannah and Jesup have been located in the SR Presidents’ files. Two pages from one item that has come to light are attached. The entire document illustrates Hardeeville-Jacksonville (actually two agreements, N and S of Savannah) was more than just trackage rights. I don’t know the “legal” meaning of “joint account” but here is the cover and sheet 18 of a document showing the track layout in detail. The entire 37 page doc could be printed or sold as an ePub if people were interested?

Ike





On Sep 17, 2020, at 12:28 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike, we are talking about Ts class engines painted black used for a limited time on a pair of freight trains between Macon and Jesup which ran at night. Interestingly, the black paint on former passenger steam engines put in freight service is only a couple of months away from the decision to paint all Southern diesels in the green scheme. If Southern wanted to present a modern image, green and gold on a steam locomotive pulling freight was0 probably not a way to convey that.

I see no reason to question Shelby Lowe on this one.

Jack Wyatt


On Thursday, September 17, 2020, 12:07:38 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





Jack:

Check out the article on Jesup that ran in TIES. Note the photos of the engines at Jesup….no 4-8-2s! Would it be logical to run a Ts to Jesup, cut it off and exchange it for a Pacific for the run to Jax? The 1951 “Guide” describes the KC-Fla Spl as “diesel powered KC-Miami, the other passenger train on the Brunswick line then was the FM powered “Cracker”.

“Never say never” but maybe Sonny Riggs can comment (most of the Jesup article photos came from him). If the 4-8-2s ran through to Jacksonville, does anyone have a photo of one of them at Simpson Yd or JT?

Ike


On Sep 17, 2020, at 7:22 AM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Ike,

Macon -Brunswick got upgraded circa WWII. The May 12, 1946 Atlanta Division ETT shows 314,800 lbs. total weight 4-8-2 Mountain engines being allowed.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 11:07:10 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:





The Southern had to use its Atlantics (4-4-2) then light Pacifics on the Brunswick line south of Macon because of the track. The Atlanta-Jacksonville train that ran on the Coast Line from Jesup exchanged engines (Ps-4s with ACL train control equipment) at Jesup for the run to J’ville. For the northbound trips the larger engine was cut off, turned and serviced by the ACL.

I suspect a Ts never operated south of Macon on the Brunswick line. Also the GS&F was not noted for heavy rail, there are quite a few photos of 4-8-2s in the SRHA archives but none of them were taken south of Macon. I realize that’s not definitive but logical considering track conditions on the GS&F. When the Southern was running the Midwestern-Fla passenger trains most went on the ACL south of Hardeeville.

Ike

PS The Florida Sunbeam article is about finished, Larry Goolsby has helped with photos of the Sunbeam on the SAL (it ran via Hampton, FL). If anyone has any photos of the train anywhere and can let us use them, that’d be great.



On Sep 16, 2020, at 7:51 PM, C J Wyatt <cjwyatt@...> wrote:

Bill,

Oscar Kimsey wrote about them in one of the issues of SRHS's Southern Rails. I think it was four or five Ts class engines in total. I don't remember whether a Ts-1 got the black treatment. If I recall, Atlanta-Brunswick was one of the routes which they were used on.

Jack Wyatt






On Wednesday, September 16, 2020, 06:33:12 PM EDT, Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:





In the SRHA Archives, we have photographs of at least two Ts-class Mountains, 1453 and 1454, in black paint with dog houses on the tender decks. These are the only two 4-8-2s I know of that got the black treatment in the 1940s. In each case, "Southern" was spelled out on the tender sides instead of large numerals typical of freight engines.

Questions:

* Does anyone know of any other SOU Mountains that were painted black just before dieselization?
* Has anyone seen photos of any black Mountains with large numerals on the tenders?
* Does anyone have a photo to share of black 4-8-2s from the 1940s other than 1453 and 1454?
* What service were the black 4-8-2s used in? We have seen a photo of 1454 (black) on a head-end heavy passenger train but none in freight service.

Of course, I haven't been to the Archives recently. It's possible more photos of black 4-8-2s have been unearthed and I just don't know about them.

Thanks.

--Bill Schafer


































<VS-55 0011.jpeg>

341 - 360 of 1752