Date   

locked Re: Question on locomotive NON

Bill Schafer
 

Ike:

You’re right that SOU required new equipment from offline sources to be billed to a station deep inside the Southern system so that SOU could participate in the rate. Lawyers, Va., near Lynchburg, was the usual location for company material or equipment being shipped through the Potomac Yard gateway, for instance. 

While Southern participated in the revenue of the move, the more important aspect was that the shipment moved on a through rate, which almost always resulted in the connecting road receiving less revenue than it otherwise would have if, say, Southern had billed new locomotives to Louisville on the foreign road and then handled them free as company material on system lines. The foreign road rate for the waybill retired in Louisville would have been higher than the foreign road's rate portion of an interline bill for a shipment billed to Danville.  

At least that’s how I remember the system working back in the day. 

—Bill

On Jan 25, 2021, at 13:43, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

Kev:

Good info!

The diesel orders, or background data we have, discuss financing,  sometimes repair parts, etc. as part of the purchase logic. I have read references to “renting” equipment back and forth but very few examples of those costs or payments being exchanged. The ICC ledgers show debits and credits to the subsidiary level. I realize when the various companies were actually “merged”, the process was no longer necessary. (Although the lettering may have been required as long as it was under an Equipment Trust.)

A lot of strategy and thought went into new locomotive purchases. That fact that a specific unit could be declared as “new” or “replacement” effected its price and down to how much it cost to ship from from EMD or GE, etc. to get to Southern rails. (Enough used/remanufactured parts or a trade-in made for a replacement.)

(I think I’ve mentioned before that waybills for locos being delivered were normally billed to places other than actual interchange points (Danville, KY rather than Louisville) so the Southern could participate in the move’s revenue. The gateway and destination were also very important because of sales taxes. Fruit Growers had an advantage selling equipment to Southern because, as both were VA corporations, there was no sales tax on the purchase.)

Ike

PS Kevin Centers is one of SRHA’s Directors and an expert “bean counter” working with assets at NS. He is also active with equipment maintenance and restorations at the Oak Ridge museum.




On Jan 25, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@...> wrote:

Ike,

I know you’re aware of this, but some others may not be. One of the primary reasons for equipment being allocated across the different subs was related to tax benefits. Many times those benefits were related to what we would now consider like kind exchange transactions where whole assets, or components, would be traded in rather than sold for scrap, which allowed the road to avoid some taxation. It should be noted that the roads had to remain consistent across the transactions. In other words AGS for example could only contribute exchangeable components for an AGS order. 
In the 2010-2012 time frame I received a call from a group of Mechanical Department folks who wondered if it was still necessary to subletter locomotives and cars since this seemed like an easy area to realize some cost savings during painting. I explained that our asset records are identified by subsidiary and that sublettering equipment could come to an end since Accounting didn’t require assets in the field to be identified by sub. As far as I know that led to the end of that practice. 

Kevin

On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:49 AM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

In pre NS days, subsidiary lettering DID reflect ownership. The CNO&TP, etc. had their own equipment trusts, or the cash to buy rolling stock, separate from the Southern proper. Although most equipment was used throughout the SRS, they tried to equalize revenues and expenses.

Here is a snippet from the (eventual) SRHA Southern Railway diesel book that gives an ownership example with SW-7 orders:

Multiple  SW-7 orders to EMD in January and February, 1950 were the result of an August 30, 1949 memo to HA DeButts explaining that of the 523 diesels in operation and on order on the Southern Railway System, 439 (84%) were owned by the Southern Railway with the remaining 84 units (16%) owned by “Allied Lines”. That proportion did not provide enough power for the subsidiaries, so they had to rent power from the Southern. Power the Southern needed for its own operations and to complete the conversion from steam to diesel in road and yard services.

Specific recommendations included: twelve yard switchers for the NO&NE to release the same number of Southern units. For the AGS, five road and five yard switchers. The road switchers would be assigned to Chattanooga-Meridian locals, the yard units to the AGS 37th St. yard, releasing five company switchers. Eight units were proposed for the GS&F; four road switchers and four yard engines to release eight Southern road switcher units. The largest number of proposed units were to go to the CNO&TP; six road switchers to be assigned to Chattanooga-Cincinnati locals and fourteen yard switchers to be distributed: four to Citico Yard (releasing four Southern switchers), two to Oakdale Yard, one to Lexington and three to Danville, KY yards with the last four to Cincinnati’s Gest St. Yard.

The recommendation was for a total of fifty road and yard switchers. If accepted, twenty-eight Southern units would be released and the west end of the Birmingham and the St. Louis-Louisville Divisions would be completely dieselized. The other twenty-eight proposed units would completely dieselize yards at Birmingham, Chattanooga (Citico), Oakdale, Danville, KY, Lexington and Cincinnati.


Ike



On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Michael Shirey <pcrrhs6561@...> wrote:

Sam, it does help and thanks!

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:30 AM Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004@...> wrote:
Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more. 

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
<pcrrhs6561@...> wrote:
Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2. 

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member



















locked Re: Question on locomotive NON markings

George Eichelberger
 

Kev:

Good info!

The diesel orders, or background data we have, discuss financing, sometimes repair parts, etc. as part of the purchase logic. I have read references to “renting” equipment back and forth but very few examples of those costs or payments being exchanged. The ICC ledgers show debits and credits to the subsidiary level. I realize when the various companies were actually “merged”, the process was no longer necessary. (Although the lettering may have been required as long as it was under an Equipment Trust.)

A lot of strategy and thought went into new locomotive purchases. That fact that a specific unit could be declared as “new” or “replacement” effected its price and down to how much it cost to ship from from EMD or GE, etc. to get to Southern rails. (Enough used/remanufactured parts or a trade-in made for a replacement.)

(I think I’ve mentioned before that waybills for locos being delivered were normally billed to places other than actual interchange points (Danville, KY rather than Louisville) so the Southern could participate in the move’s revenue. The gateway and destination were also very important because of sales taxes. Fruit Growers had an advantage selling equipment to Southern because, as both were VA corporations, there was no sales tax on the purchase.)

Ike

PS Kevin Centers is one of SRHA’s Directors and an expert “bean counter” working with assets at NS. He is also active with equipment maintenance and restorations at the Oak Ridge museum.

On Jan 25, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Kevin Centers <klcenters@outlook.com> wrote:

Ike,

I know you’re aware of this, but some others may not be. One of the primary reasons for equipment being allocated across the different subs was related to tax benefits. Many times those benefits were related to what we would now consider like kind exchange transactions where whole assets, or components, would be traded in rather than sold for scrap, which allowed the road to avoid some taxation. It should be noted that the roads had to remain consistent across the transactions. In other words AGS for example could only contribute exchangeable components for an AGS order.
In the 2010-2012 time frame I received a call from a group of Mechanical Department folks who wondered if it was still necessary to subletter locomotives and cars since this seemed like an easy area to realize some cost savings during painting. I explained that our asset records are identified by subsidiary and that sublettering equipment could come to an end since Accounting didn’t require assets in the field to be identified by sub. As far as I know that led to the end of that practice.

Kevin

On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:49 AM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:

In pre NS days, subsidiary lettering DID reflect ownership. The CNO&TP, etc. had their own equipment trusts, or the cash to buy rolling stock, separate from the Southern proper. Although most equipment was used throughout the SRS, they tried to equalize revenues and expenses.

Here is a snippet from the (eventual) SRHA Southern Railway diesel book that gives an ownership example with SW-7 orders:

Multiple SW-7 orders to EMD in January and February, 1950 were the result of an August 30, 1949 memo to HA DeButts explaining that of the 523 diesels in operation and on order on the Southern Railway System, 439 (84%) were owned by the Southern Railway with the remaining 84 units (16%) owned by “Allied Lines”. That proportion did not provide enough power for the subsidiaries, so they had to rent power from the Southern. Power the Southern needed for its own operations and to complete the conversion from steam to diesel in road and yard services.

Specific recommendations included: twelve yard switchers for the NO&NE to release the same number of Southern units. For the AGS, five road and five yard switchers. The road switchers would be assigned to Chattanooga-Meridian locals, the yard units to the AGS 37th St. yard, releasing five company switchers. Eight units were proposed for the GS&F; four road switchers and four yard engines to release eight Southern road switcher units. The largest number of proposed units were to go to the CNO&TP; six road switchers to be assigned to Chattanooga-Cincinnati locals and fourteen yard switchers to be distributed: four to Citico Yard (releasing four Southern switchers), two to Oakdale Yard, one to Lexington and three to Danville, KY yards with the last four to Cincinnati’s Gest St. Yard.

The recommendation was for a total of fifty road and yard switchers. If accepted, twenty-eight Southern units would be released and the west end of the Birmingham and the St. Louis-Louisville Divisions would be completely dieselized. The other twenty-eight proposed units would completely dieselize yards at Birmingham, Chattanooga (Citico), Oakdale, Danville, KY, Lexington and Cincinnati.


Ike



On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Michael Shirey <pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, it does help and thanks!

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:30 AM Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more.

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
<pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2.

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member









locked Re: Question on locomotive NON markings

Kevin Centers
 

Ike,

I know you’re aware of this, but some others may not be. One of the primary reasons for equipment being allocated across the different subs was related to tax benefits. Many times those benefits were related to what we would now consider like kind exchange transactions where whole assets, or components, would be traded in rather than sold for scrap, which allowed the road to avoid some taxation. It should be noted that the roads had to remain consistent across the transactions. In other words AGS for example could only contribute exchangeable components for an AGS order.
In the 2010-2012 time frame I received a call from a group of Mechanical Department folks who wondered if it was still necessary to subletter locomotives and cars since this seemed like an easy area to realize some cost savings during painting. I explained that our asset records are identified by subsidiary and that sublettering equipment could come to an end since Accounting didn’t require assets in the field to be identified by sub. As far as I know that led to the end of that practice.

Kevin

On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:49 AM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@bellsouth.net> wrote:

In pre NS days, subsidiary lettering DID reflect ownership. The CNO&TP, etc. had their own equipment trusts, or the cash to buy rolling stock, separate from the Southern proper. Although most equipment was used throughout the SRS, they tried to equalize revenues and expenses.

Here is a snippet from the (eventual) SRHA Southern Railway diesel book that gives an ownership example with SW-7 orders:

Multiple SW-7 orders to EMD in January and February, 1950 were the result of an August 30, 1949 memo to HA DeButts explaining that of the 523 diesels in operation and on order on the Southern Railway System, 439 (84%) were owned by the Southern Railway with the remaining 84 units (16%) owned by “Allied Lines”. That proportion did not provide enough power for the subsidiaries, so they had to rent power from the Southern. Power the Southern needed for its own operations and to complete the conversion from steam to diesel in road and yard services.

Specific recommendations included: twelve yard switchers for the NO&NE to release the same number of Southern units. For the AGS, five road and five yard switchers. The road switchers would be assigned to Chattanooga-Meridian locals, the yard units to the AGS 37th St. yard, releasing five company switchers. Eight units were proposed for the GS&F; four road switchers and four yard engines to release eight Southern road switcher units. The largest number of proposed units were to go to the CNO&TP; six road switchers to be assigned to Chattanooga-Cincinnati locals and fourteen yard switchers to be distributed: four to Citico Yard (releasing four Southern switchers), two to Oakdale Yard, one to Lexington and three to Danville, KY yards with the last four to Cincinnati’s Gest St. Yard.

The recommendation was for a total of fifty road and yard switchers. If accepted, twenty-eight Southern units would be released and the west end of the Birmingham and the St. Louis-Louisville Divisions would be completely dieselized. The other twenty-eight proposed units would completely dieselize yards at Birmingham, Chattanooga (Citico), Oakdale, Danville, KY, Lexington and Cincinnati.


Ike



On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Michael Shirey <pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, it does help and thanks!

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:30 AM Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more.

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
<pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2.

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member









locked Re: Question on locomotive NON markings

George Eichelberger
 

In pre NS days, subsidiary lettering DID reflect ownership. The CNO&TP, etc. had their own equipment trusts, or the cash to buy rolling stock, separate from the Southern proper. Although most equipment was used throughout the SRS, they tried to equalize revenues and expenses.

Here is a snippet from the (eventual) SRHA Southern Railway diesel book that gives an ownership example with SW-7 orders:

Multiple SW-7 orders to EMD in January and February, 1950 were the result of an August 30, 1949 memo to HA DeButts explaining that of the 523 diesels in operation and on order on the Southern Railway System, 439 (84%) were owned by the Southern Railway with the remaining 84 units (16%) owned by “Allied Lines”. That proportion did not provide enough power for the subsidiaries, so they had to rent power from the Southern. Power the Southern needed for its own operations and to complete the conversion from steam to diesel in road and yard services.

Specific recommendations included: twelve yard switchers for the NO&NE to release the same number of Southern units. For the AGS, five road and five yard switchers. The road switchers would be assigned to Chattanooga-Meridian locals, the yard units to the AGS 37th St. yard, releasing five company switchers. Eight units were proposed for the GS&F; four road switchers and four yard engines to release eight Southern road switcher units. The largest number of proposed units were to go to the CNO&TP; six road switchers to be assigned to Chattanooga-Cincinnati locals and fourteen yard switchers to be distributed: four to Citico Yard (releasing four Southern switchers), two to Oakdale Yard, one to Lexington and three to Danville, KY yards with the last four to Cincinnati’s Gest St. Yard.

The recommendation was for a total of fifty road and yard switchers. If accepted, twenty-eight Southern units would be released and the west end of the Birmingham and the St. Louis-Louisville Divisions would be completely dieselized. The other twenty-eight proposed units would completely dieselize yards at Birmingham, Chattanooga (Citico), Oakdale, Danville, KY, Lexington and Cincinnati.


Ike

On Jan 25, 2021, at 11:24 AM, Michael Shirey <pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:

Sam, it does help and thanks!

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:30 AM Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more.

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
<pcrrhs6561@gmail.com> wrote:
Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2.

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


locked Re: Question on locomotive NON markings

Michael Shirey
 

 Sam, it does help and thanks!

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


On Mon, Jan 25, 2021 at 8:30 AM Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:
Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more. 

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
 Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2. 

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


locked Re: HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

michael DUNNINGTON
 

No original box. Sorry. 
Michael 


On Jan 25, 2021, at 6:36 AM, rwbrv4 via groups.io <dccinstallssales@...> wrote:


If it was in the original box please send me a photo of the box end with all it's information.
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: cvlwrnut@...
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Jan 24, 2021 4:21 pm
Subject: [SouthernRailway] HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

Has anyone in the group had any experience with "older" Broadway Limited steam locomotives?  I acquired one (decorated as a SOU 2-8-2 #6326) recently at an estate sale.  I operate only DC, but they're supposed to run on DC.  Anyway, when I powered it up, it made start-up sounds, but would not run.  Having contacted BLI, I was told that it's a discontinued, QSI-sound-equipped model, older than fifteen years.  I managed to do a reset on the locomotive, but it still won't run.  I'm suspecting that there's a motor/gearing problem, since it makes a vague rumbling sound when it should be running.
In any case, it didn't come with any parts/service drawings, and they're no longer available from Broadway Limited.  I'm hoping that someone in this group might have experience with one like mine, or similar in age.
Thanks for any help you might offer.
Michael Dunnington
St. Louis, MO, area


locked Re: Southern Crescent

Charlie Newton
 

Thank you. Sounds right to me.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:29 PM Robert Hanson via groups.io <RHanson669=aol.com@groups.io> wrote:
The last one I have in my collection is dated October 29, 1978.

I'm fairly certain that his was the last one issued.  The did not issue timetables on a monthly basis and as they were trying to take the train off (and turn it over to Amtrak) it is doubtful that another was issued later than this.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Newton <newt711@...>
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Jan 24, 2021 5:16 pm
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Southern Crescent

Hello---Anyone here know the issue date of the last Southern Crescent timetable? I believe it was October 1978. Comments? Thank you.


locked Re: GA drawings for Big Reds and Little Big Reds

George Eichelberger
 

Scott:

What is a “General Arrangement book”? Are you referring to versions of the Southern Freight Car Diagram books (some sold by SRHA) or actual General Arr't drawings? The diagram books were certainly not intended to provide an accurate “image” of what each car series looked like.

In some cases, a diagram book page represents cars from more than one carbuilder or the result of a rebuild program that used different cars.

I expect the SRHA archives has the full size “General Arrangement” drawings for every SR and CofG hopper and most otherfreight cars back to about 1905.

Ike


On Jan 25, 2021, at 8:19 AM, Sam Smith via groups.io <sam_smith2004@...> wrote:

Scott,
This is kinda interesting to me and I'm glad you asked. I will be interested to see what answers come from the group. I always kinda figured that the actual drawing was just a generalization and that the measurements were the "important" or "useful" information. I came to this conclusion because to me, a lot of the drawings of similar types of cars looked, well, a little "to similar" to me.

Sam Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 9:52 PM, D. Scott Chatfield
<blindog@...> wrote:
So I was looking through my Southern general arrangement drawings, a pile that stops in the late '60s, and noticed that the drawings for both the Pullman Big Reds and Greenville Little Big Reds both show a 14-panel car side.  This doesn't match either, since the Big Reds had 20 panels and the Little Big Reds had 18 panels.  (We count only the full height panels.). It turns out that these drawings are pretty close to what some of the Little Big Reds looked like after they were rebodied in the mid '80s.  Strange or prescient?

Did any of the later G.A. books have corrected drawings for these cars?



Scott Chatfield


locked Re: Question on locomotive NON markings

Sam Smith
 

Micheal,
Yes, you are correct. If a locomotive, or any rolling stock does not have a subsidiary abbreviation displayed somewhere on it, then it belongs to the SOUTHERN proper. On freight cars and cabooses, these letters are usually on the upper right hand side.
Of course, all of this is primarily for financial and tax purposes, otherwise, it's all owned or operated by the Southern Railway Company.
Now, in "modern day" times, through paper mergers within mergers and such, you don't see these "sub-lettering" any more. 

Hope this helps a little.
Samuel Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:41 PM, Michael Shirey
<pcrrhs6561@...> wrote:
 Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2. 

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


locked Re: GA drawings for Big Reds and Little Big Reds

Sam Smith
 

Scott,
This is kinda interesting to me and I'm glad you asked. I will be interested to see what answers come from the group. I always kinda figured that the actual drawing was just a generalization and that the measurements were the "important" or "useful" information. I came to this conclusion because to me, a lot of the drawings of similar types of cars looked, well, a little "to similar" to me.

Sam Smith
Moultrie, Ga.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 9:52 PM, D. Scott Chatfield
<blindog@...> wrote:
So I was looking through my Southern general arrangement drawings, a pile that stops in the late '60s, and noticed that the drawings for both the Pullman Big Reds and Greenville Little Big Reds both show a 14-panel car side.  This doesn't match either, since the Big Reds had 20 panels and the Little Big Reds had 18 panels.  (We count only the full height panels.). It turns out that these drawings are pretty close to what some of the Little Big Reds looked like after they were rebodied in the mid '80s.  Strange or prescient?

Did any of the later G.A. books have corrected drawings for these cars?



Scott Chatfield


locked Re: HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

rwbrv4
 

If it was in the original box please send me a photo of the box end with all it's information.
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: cvlwrnut@...
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Jan 24, 2021 4:21 pm
Subject: [SouthernRailway] HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

Has anyone in the group had any experience with "older" Broadway Limited steam locomotives?  I acquired one (decorated as a SOU 2-8-2 #6326) recently at an estate sale.  I operate only DC, but they're supposed to run on DC.  Anyway, when I powered it up, it made start-up sounds, but would not run.  Having contacted BLI, I was told that it's a discontinued, QSI-sound-equipped model, older than fifteen years.  I managed to do a reset on the locomotive, but it still won't run.  I'm suspecting that there's a motor/gearing problem, since it makes a vague rumbling sound when it should be running.
In any case, it didn't come with any parts/service drawings, and they're no longer available from Broadway Limited.  I'm hoping that someone in this group might have experience with one like mine, or similar in age.
Thanks for any help you might offer.
Michael Dunnington
St. Louis, MO, area


locked GA drawings for Big Reds and Little Big Reds

D. Scott Chatfield
 

So I was looking through my Southern general arrangement drawings, a pile that stops in the late '60s, and noticed that the drawings for both the Pullman Big Reds and Greenville Little Big Reds both show a 14-panel car side.  This doesn't match either, since the Big Reds had 20 panels and the Little Big Reds had 18 panels.  (We count only the full height panels.). It turns out that these drawings are pretty close to what some of the Little Big Reds looked like after they were rebodied in the mid '80s.  Strange or prescient?

Did any of the later G.A. books have corrected drawings for these cars?



Scott Chatfield


locked Question on locomotive NON markings

Michael Shirey
 

 Ok guys, I understand the check codes and reporting marks on the side of a locomotive cab. What if a locomotive does now have a reporting mark for ownership. Is it just assumed it belongs to SOU? I ask this because there seems to be a few GP38-2 with no marks. I have Athearn #40609 SOU 5025 GP38-2. 

Michael Shirey
PCRRHS and SRHA Member


locked Re: Southern Crescent

Robert Hanson
 

The last one I have in my collection is dated October 29, 1978.

I'm fairly certain that his was the last one issued.  The did not issue timetables on a monthly basis and as they were trying to take the train off (and turn it over to Amtrak) it is doubtful that another was issued later than this.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA

-----Original Message-----
From: Charlie Newton <newt711@...>
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Sent: Sun, Jan 24, 2021 5:16 pm
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Southern Crescent

Hello---Anyone here know the issue date of the last Southern Crescent timetable? I believe it was October 1978. Comments? Thank you.


locked Re: Southern Crescent

Charlie Newton
 

Thank you.


On Sun, Jan 24, 2021 at 8:26 PM Bill Schafer <bill4501@...> wrote:
October 29, 1978 was the last Southern Crescent public timetable.

—Bill

On Jan 24, 2021, at 17:16, Charlie Newton <newt711@...> wrote:

Hello---Anyone here know the issue date of the last Southern Crescent timetable? I believe it was October 1978. Comments? Thank you.


locked Re: Southern Crescent

Bill Schafer
 

October 29, 1978 was the last Southern Crescent public timetable.

—Bill

On Jan 24, 2021, at 17:16, Charlie Newton <newt711@...> wrote:

Hello---Anyone here know the issue date of the last Southern Crescent timetable? I believe it was October 1978. Comments? Thank you.


locked Southern Crescent

Charlie Newton
 

Hello---Anyone here know the issue date of the last Southern Crescent timetable? I believe it was October 1978. Comments? Thank you.


locked Re: HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

Eric Schrowang
 

Mike 
Might want to check with the repower regear group on Facebook.

Eric

On Sun, Jan 24, 2021, 16:58 <cvlwrnut@...> wrote:
Has anyone in the group had any experience with "older" Broadway Limited steam locomotives?  I acquired one (decorated as a SOU 2-8-2 #6326) recently at an estate sale.  I operate only DC, but they're supposed to run on DC.  Anyway, when I powered it up, it made start-up sounds, but would not run.  Having contacted BLI, I was told that it's a discontinued, QSI-sound-equipped model, older than fifteen years.  I managed to do a reset on the locomotive, but it still won't run.  I'm suspecting that there's a motor/gearing problem, since it makes a vague rumbling sound when it should be running.
In any case, it didn't come with any parts/service drawings, and they're no longer available from Broadway Limited.  I'm hoping that someone in this group might have experience with one like mine, or similar in age.
Thanks for any help you might offer.
Michael Dunnington
St. Louis, MO, area


locked Re: HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

rwbrv4
 

Contact me off list at dccinstallssales@... 
Rick




On Sunday, January 24, 2021 cvlwrnut <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> wrote:

Has anyone in the group had any experience with "older" Broadway Limited steam locomotives?  I acquired one (decorated as a SOU 2-8-2 #6326) recently at an estate sale.  I operate only DC, but they're supposed to run on DC.  Anyway, when I powered it up, it made start-up sounds, but would not run.  Having contacted BLI, I was told that it's a discontinued, QSI-sound-equipped model, older than fifteen years.  I managed to do a reset on the locomotive, but it still won't run.  I'm suspecting that there's a motor/gearing problem, since it makes a vague rumbling sound when it should be running.
In any case, it didn't come with any parts/service drawings, and they're no longer available from Broadway Limited.  I'm hoping that someone in this group might have experience with one like mine, or similar in age.
Thanks for any help you might offer.
Michael Dunnington
St. Louis, MO, area


locked HO BLI/QSI Steam Locomotives

michael DUNNINGTON
 

Has anyone in the group had any experience with "older" Broadway Limited steam locomotives?  I acquired one (decorated as a SOU 2-8-2 #6326) recently at an estate sale.  I operate only DC, but they're supposed to run on DC.  Anyway, when I powered it up, it made start-up sounds, but would not run.  Having contacted BLI, I was told that it's a discontinued, QSI-sound-equipped model, older than fifteen years.  I managed to do a reset on the locomotive, but it still won't run.  I'm suspecting that there's a motor/gearing problem, since it makes a vague rumbling sound when it should be running.
In any case, it didn't come with any parts/service drawings, and they're no longer available from Broadway Limited.  I'm hoping that someone in this group might have experience with one like mine, or similar in age.
Thanks for any help you might offer.
Michael Dunnington
St. Louis, MO, area

661 - 680 of 2238