Date   

locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

 

Ike,
 
I’ve certainly enjoyed reading all (or most) of the Southern Rwy’s historic letters and documents that you’ve posted.  Keep up the good work.
 
Ed Locklin at mp367.
 

 

From: George Eichelberger
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 12:23 PM
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Southern box car preference, circa 1918
 
I mentioned in an earlier post that the Southern was not particularly interested in obtaining 50-Ton USRA box cars. Here (attached) is a 9-20-1918 memo to SR President Fairfax Harrison explaining why 30-T capy box cars are more suited to Southern’s territory and traffic base. Note that in 1918, “The South” was still an agrarian economy with not much heavy manufacturing. The memo is as much about the Southern’s business environment as it was about box car design.
 
Comments please! There is no reason to fill up the .io list if this kind of material is not of interest to many people.
 
I believe it IS a reason for people to donate both their cash and their time working on the SRHA archives material!
 
Ike
 
 
 


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

A&Y Dave in MD
 

Ike,

This complements the information in the 1934 conductor books for the Winston-Salem division over a decade later.  I was struck in the wheel reports on the relatively small tonnage values in loaded cars.  I wish I had more years of such data to track it.  Ton-miles and car load count statistics hide that aspect a bit.   These men knew the region and how to run their railway.

Dave

Tuesday, April 13, 2021, 12:23:26 PM, you wrote:


I mentioned in an earlier post that the Southern was not particularly interested in obtaining 50-Ton USRA box cars. Here (attached) is a 9-20-1918 memo to SR President Fairfax Harrison explaining why 30-T capy box cars are more suited to Southern’s territory and traffic base. Note that in 1918, “The South” was still an agrarian economy with not much heavy manufacturing. The memo is as much about the Southern’s business environment as it was about box car design.

Comments please! There is no reason to fill up the .io list if this kind of material is not of interest to many people.

I believe it IS a reason for people to donate both their cash and their time working on the SRHA archives material!

Ike

 





--
David Bott

Sent from David Bott's desktop PC


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

Bill Schafer
 

Fairfax Harrison certainly didn’t/couldn’t adapt and it darn near bankrupted the railroad during the depression. One of the factors that nearly sank SOU in the 1930s was that SOU eventually closed the shops and stopped maintaining its wooden boxcar fleet. The result was an incredible per diem imbalance. An argument could be made that if Harrison had accepted the USRA boxcars when they were offered, and continued to buy steel cars thereafter,the railroad would not have been quite as disadvantaged by the per diem issue fifteen years later. One of the first things Ernest Norris did when he took over for Harrison in 1937 was to take out an RFC loan and buy 5,000 steel 40-foot boxcars. One of these cars is at TVRM today in need of restoration. 

—Bill Schafer

On Apr 13, 2021, at 13:58, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

Tim:

I agree “different” was always the Southern way. Watching every penny and adhering to accounting policies always served the company well.

Conventional wisdom explaining why the Southern kept 40-T 36ft box cars in service so long is typically that Fairfield Harrison simply did not like change or spending money. It may be that SR management knew their territory so well, their financial decisions followed.

When the Southern started buying all steel box cars in 1938, it was a recognition its rolling stock was antiquated but it also took advantage of RFC loans to buy them.

Ike


On Apr 13, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Tim <tarumph@...> wrote:

This is very interesting and is indicative of the long history of Southern doing its own thing for its own reasons. 

When I'm on other lists here at groups.io and mention the practices on my layout, I also preface it with, "This is the Southern Ry., so it's different than everybody else."

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC



locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

George Eichelberger
 

Tim:

I agree “different” was always the Southern way. Watching every penny and adhering to accounting policies always served the company well.

Conventional wisdom explaining why the Southern kept 40-T 36ft box cars in service so long is typically that Fairfield Harrison simply did not like change or spending money. It may be that SR management knew their territory so well, their financial decisions followed.

When the Southern started buying all steel box cars in 1938, it was a recognition its rolling stock was antiquated but it also took advantage of RFC loans to buy them.

Ike


On Apr 13, 2021, at 1:30 PM, Tim <tarumph@...> wrote:

This is very interesting and is indicative of the long history of Southern doing its own thing for its own reasons.

When I'm on other lists here at groups.io and mention the practices on my layout, I also preface it with, "This is the Southern Ry., so it's different than everybody else."

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

Matt Bumgarner
 

Keep up the good work Ike. 

These posts are very much appreciated.

Matt Bumgarner

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 1:30 PM Tim <tarumph@...> wrote:
This is very interesting and is indicative of the long history of Southern doing its own thing for its own reasons.

When I'm on other lists here at groups.io and mention the practices on my layout, I also preface it with, "This is the Southern Ry., so it's different than everybody else."

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

Tim
 

This is very interesting and is indicative of the long history of Southern doing its own thing for its own reasons.

When I'm on other lists here at groups.io and mention the practices on my layout, I also preface it with, "This is the Southern Ry., so it's different than everybody else."

Tim Rumph
Lancaster, SC


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

O Fenton Wells
 

I think this is interesting and appreciate your sharing it. 
Thank you
Fenton 


On Apr 13, 2021, at 12:23 PM, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Southern was not particularly interested in obtaining 50-Ton USRA box cars. Here (attached) is a 9-20-1918 memo to SR President Fairfax Harrison explaining why 30-T capy box cars are more suited to Southern’s territory and traffic base. Note that in 1918, “The South” was still an agrarian economy with not much heavy manufacturing. The memo is as much about the Southern’s business environment as it was about box car design.

Comments please! There is no reason to fill up the .io list if this kind of material is not of interest to many people.

I believe it IS a reason for people to donate both their cash and their time working on the SRHA archives material!

Ike

<1918-9-20 comments on 50-T box cars Pg 1.jpeg>
 

<1918-9-20 comments on 50-T box cars Pg 2.jpeg>


locked Southern box car preference, circa 1918

George Eichelberger
 

I mentioned in an earlier post that the Southern was not particularly interested in obtaining 50-Ton USRA box cars. Here (attached) is a 9-20-1918 memo to SR President Fairfax Harrison explaining why 30-T capy box cars are more suited to Southern’s territory and traffic base. Note that in 1918, “The South” was still an agrarian economy with not much heavy manufacturing. The memo is as much about the Southern’s business environment as it was about box car design.

Comments please! There is no reason to fill up the .io list if this kind of material is not of interest to many people.

I believe it IS a reason for people to donate both their cash and their time working on the SRHA archives material!

Ike

 


locked "Tyranical" USRA in 1918

George Eichelberger
 

While scanning multiple WWI era files in the SRHA archives, I’ve learned about an aspect of the United States Railroad Administration (USRA) I was not aware of. In addition to the typical railroad officers, the Southern had a “Federal Manager” that acted as an intermediary between the railroad management and the USRA. The correspondence shows decisions about which USRA “allocations” had been requested, to accept them and then how to pay for them were made by some combination of the three.

One answered a long-standing question of mine about why the Southern had so few USRA design box cars. In a full page letter to the USRA, Southern explained that its standard 30-ton, 36ft box cars were more suitable to its freight traffic than the 40ft, 40-T USRA standard cars (designed by the NYC?) that had been allocated. Costs, parts made far from Southern territory and other items were mentioned in the reasons to reject the allocation (apparently not requested by the railroad).

Of the multiple examples where cars were allocated but not accepted/wanted by the Southern, the letter sent to Southern President Fairfax Harrison (attached) Nov 14, 1918 resulted in the memo sent by “FH” the next day. Southern managements always resented any attempt at “Government Control” but forcing the railroad to spend money they did not think justifiable was too much.

Ike



locked Re: Name for Southern 2-10-2s

Ed Burnett
 

This is new to me also, but I appreciate that Mr. Harrison underlined the word "type". Indicating that "Santa Fe" was already the accepted name for that wheel arrangement and, maybe, implying that "E.H.C." should have known that! -Ed Burnett, Lynchburg, Virginia

On 04/12/2021 1:15 PM Robert Hanson via groups.io <rhanson669@...> wrote:
 
 
I hadn't heard of this, either, but you'll notice that Fairfax Harrison pretty well nixed the idea.
 
Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: rwbrv4 via groups.io <dccinstallssales@...>
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Name for Southern 2-10-2s

No Sir, I have not heard that one.  I won't swear to it but I'm almost certain that it's not in Prince's book or Ranks and Lowe either. 
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 9:52 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Name for Southern 2-10-2s

From the SRHA archives (Box 338 File 8778 USRA equipment), here are two teletype messages from 8-17-1917. I don’t think I have heard this tidbit before?
 
Ike
 


locked Re: Name for Southern 2-10-2s

Robert Hanson
 

I hadn't heard of this, either, but you'll notice that Fairfax Harrison pretty well nixed the idea.

Bob Hanson
Loganville, GA


-----Original Message-----
From: rwbrv4 via groups.io <dccinstallssales@...>
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 1:10 pm
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Name for Southern 2-10-2s

No Sir, I have not heard that one.  I won't swear to it but I'm almost certain that it's not in Prince's book or Ranks and Lowe either. 
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 9:52 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Name for Southern 2-10-2s

From the SRHA archives (Box 338 File 8778 USRA equipment), here are two teletype messages from 8-17-1917. I don’t think I have heard this tidbit before?

Ike


locked Re: Name for Southern 2-10-2s

rwbrv4
 

No Sir, I have not heard that one.  I won't swear to it but I'm almost certain that it's not in Prince's book or Ranks and Lowe either. 
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Mon, Apr 12, 2021 9:52 am
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Name for Southern 2-10-2s

From the SRHA archives (Box 338 File 8778 USRA equipment), here are two teletype messages from 8-17-1917. I don’t think I have heard this tidbit before?

Ike


locked Name for Southern 2-10-2s

George Eichelberger
 

From the SRHA archives (Box 338 File 8778 USRA equipment), here are two teletype messages from 8-17-1917. I don’t think I have heard this tidbit before?

Ike


locked Re: Jim Crow

rwbrv4
 

Ike, you just keep digging up the gold.

Good one.
Rick


-----Original Message-----
From: George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
To: main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Sent: Thu, Apr 8, 2021 7:53 pm
Subject: [SouthernRailway] Jim Crow

Certainly , everyone has heard “Jim Crow”, but what was it exactly?

Here is a circular issued by both the Transportation (No. 141) and Passenger Departments (P-328) issued January 29, 1946 to implement Alabama PSC Rule T-18.

Ike



locked Questions for early 20th Century Southern Railway

A&Y Dave in MD
 

I am trying to understand a few things about the Southern Railway operations and corporate decision making from 1900-1924.  If anyone has easy access to evidence that can help me, I'd appreciate it.  If not, it will have to wait until I can visit the archives and do some research.

My questions:

  1. After reading R.E. Prince, I know that the Southern conducted a significant locomotive renumbering in 1903. I believe that helped organize the classes of locomotives acquired from all the predecessor roads, along with all those new locomotives built for the Southern from 1900-1903.  There appears to be a subsequent renumbering in 1907 and possibly another in 1916, but I don't know why.  Any information on why?
  2. According to Roland B. Eutsler in his history of the CF&YV published in The North Carolina Historical Review, the Southern operated the A&Y as part of its Danville Division from 1900 until 1908.  But according to Mr. Eutsler "A part of this time, from 1908 through 1916, the Atlantic and was operated by the Southern under a lease."   I lost my copies of the Southern legal histories and addenda in my house fire.  Does anyone have any information on this lease and why it was made when the A&Y stock was wholly owned by the Southern?
  3. After the USRA took over operations of US Railroads in 1918-1919, the A&Y was returned to independent operation. And in 1924 it went into receivership.  Was the A&Y operated as part of the Danville Division then, or was it now with the Winston-Salem division where it ended up decades later in 1950?
  4. It appears that the lease of Southern locomotives began as early 1917, but rentals occurred as early as 1912 (and I wonder given the statement of Mr. Eutsler above whether the leasing and rentals occurred as early as 1908.  Anyone know of evidence about how these wholly owned subsidiaries might be given lease or rental agreements in this time period and why?


Cannot hurt to ask!

Thanks,

Dave Bott



--

Sent from David Bott's desktop pc


locked Re: Jim Crow

TIM ANDREWS
 

Wow.

On Thursday, April 8, 2021, 07:54:11 PM EDT, George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:


Certainly , everyone has heard “Jim Crow”, but what was it exactly?

Here is a circular issued by both the Transportation (No. 141) and Passenger Departments (P-328) issued January 29, 1946 to implement Alabama PSC Rule T-18.

Ike



locked Jim Crow

George Eichelberger
 

Certainly , everyone has heard “Jim Crow”, but what was it exactly?

Here is a circular issued by both the Transportation (No. 141) and Passenger Departments (P-328) issued January 29, 1946 to implement Alabama PSC Rule T-18.

Ike



locked Re: Drawing and Maps in the SRHA Archives

George Eichelberger
 

Chris:

Your information about Erlanger and the depot is interesting but yet another example that historical groups and model railroad clubs CANNOT trust or rely on municipalities to provide, and not change its mind about, facilities. OR, as in the case of SRHA, the management of the facility decided, because they were a “department” of the City of Kennesaw, they could exercise whatever authority they chose. (more on that in a moment.)  

From almost the time SRHA moved into the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History in Kennesaw, GA, we had to deal with newly minted academics that thought they were experts in all things related to railroads, preservation, scanning, etc., etc. If staff members “were busy”, we had to delay the start of our work sessions to accommodate their schedules. 

I had a conversation with two staff members (they complained about me not being respectful as museum management told them to do as often as possible) about scanning photographic negatives. As they were instructing me about things such as film resolution, the “dpi” to use, scanning formats,. etc. I realized, and finally asked if they had EVER taken a photo using a film camera or were in a darkroom. I was not so much shocked that they never had as I was they were willing to argue with me about things they knew nothing about.

SRHA eventually sued the museum to remove our collection. Suing a municipality in GA is very difficult, esp. when you realize they have unlimited, taxpayer funded, legal resources. Although the fight took significant time and money, there was absolutely no way the Museum could win in court. The museum had signed an agreement with SRHA in 2002-03 as as a "501-c-3 charity registered in Georgia”. When we were looking for the legal address to serve the lawsuit, we were amazed (!) that there was not/never had been anything by that name registered with the IRS or the State of Georgia! (The agreement was worthless!)

Investing in a building beyond the control of any governmental agency has been shown to be the best thing to do over and over.

Ike

PS Some day, I’ll rant about how the Kennesaw Museum “hijacked” the entire David Salter photographic collection…..



On Apr 5, 2021, at 7:50 PM, CMayhew <chris.mayhew611@...> wrote:

Ike,

I just did a quick review of Carl Condit's excellent book "The Railroad and The City," which has a whole chapter on the attempts to build a union station with the serious attempts starting in 1901, and of course the plan that was actually adopted not happening until Cincinnati Union Terminal was created in the 1920s. I don't see this plan mentioned in his excellent book, which covers multiple locations, designs and artistic renderings of what the proposed station would look like. 

If those plans do exist, and I'm not saying they don't, then I have not seen them for that location (yet). I'll ask around on this though, as we have others who know CUTs development better than I do. I have a lot of valuation maps and drawings with proposals for where this station would have been built (many done around the time period of this letter). This is fascinating. There were so many plans that just were not acted upon. It's possible something like that resides in our club's holdings (and it just hasn't been indexed).

Maybe the club will be in a position in a year or to offer something if SRHA wanted to do another Cincinnati convention again, but right now whether the club will go back to Tower A in CUT or do something else remains in question. Really, it is THE QUESTION.

I was in college when the Erlanger depot was restored. I took some pictures of it being repainted into the current colors. What happens to that depot's interior is now an interesting question as the mayor has a plan to remodel the depot and remove the local historical society from the depot. So, that bears watching too. It's a city-owned depot now in a city-owned park with a view of the railroad. I'm sure the depot itself will stand for a long time, but how the city will use it is now in question. It has been a community museum with lots of Southern Railway railroadiana up until now. Perhaps some of that will stay in there. It should.

-Chris

-Chris


locked New L&N home won’t be old, but it will be reliable - Classic Trains Magazine - Railroad History, Vintage Train Videos, Steam Locomotives, Forums

George Eichelberger
 

Many of us may be aware of the L&NHS move to the SRHA/TVRM archive at TVRM but here is Kevin Keefe’s take on it from Classic Trains Magazine.

Ike



locked Re: Drawing and Maps in the SRHA Archives

 

Ike,

I just did a quick review of Carl Condit's excellent book "The Railroad and The City," which has a whole chapter on the attempts to build a union station with the serious attempts starting in 1901, and of course the plan that was actually adopted not happening until Cincinnati Union Terminal was created in the 1920s. I don't see this plan mentioned in his excellent book, which covers multiple locations, designs and artistic renderings of what the proposed station would look like. 

If those plans do exist, and I'm not saying they don't, then I have not seen them for that location (yet). I'll ask around on this though, as we have others who know CUTs development better than I do. I have a lot of valuation maps and drawings with proposals for where this station would have been built (many done around the time period of this letter). This is fascinating. There were so many plans that just were not acted upon. It's possible something like that resides in our club's holdings (and it just hasn't been indexed).

Maybe the club will be in a position in a year or to offer something if SRHA wanted to do another Cincinnati convention again, but right now whether the club will go back to Tower A in CUT or do something else remains in question. Really, it is THE QUESTION.

I was in college when the Erlanger depot was restored. I took some pictures of it being repainted into the current colors. What happens to that depot's interior is now an interesting question as the mayor has a plan to remodel the depot and remove the local historical society from the depot. So, that bears watching too. It's a city-owned depot now in a city-owned park with a view of the railroad. I'm sure the depot itself will stand for a long time, but how the city will use it is now in question. It has been a community museum with lots of Southern Railway railroadiana up until now. Perhaps some of that will stay in there. It should.

-Chris

-Chris

481 - 500 of 2290