Date   

locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

D. Scott Chatfield
 

Ike, the letter shows that the problem of cube vs tare is not a new one.  Truckers for years have begged for ever longer trailers because so many of their loads cube out before reaching the weight limit.  Then they beg for a higher weight limit.....

The letter also sheds light on the reason why tonnage numbers from back then don't seem to add up to our modern minds.  And by modern I mean post-1960.  We're used to many of our loads being darn close to the cars' load limits, because the cars were designed that way.  It wasn't always so.  "Here's a boxcar.  Fill it.  Or don't."

And I must again please ask list members to pay attention to how their email program handles attachments when they reply to an email.  Ike's email was nearly 1 MB.  Now we at least four replys containing Ike's original.  A 5 MB hit to our storage limit.  Storage space in Groups.io is not infinite and not free.

I know some email programs just resend the attachments and you have no way to stop them.  That's because too many programmers are idiots who write code that they never use.  Until it becomes legal to throw them into live volcanos it is a problem that will be tough to solve.  Your vigilance will be necessary.

Thank you.  I'll step down from my soapbox.

Please keep uncovering wonderful nuggets from the past Ike.  I've learned a lot about the Southern.

Scott Chatfield


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

John Stewart
 

Thanks for sending this along the “wire” Ike

 

John

 

John R Stewart

www.bhamrails.info

205-901-3790

 

image004

 

From: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io [mailto:main@SouthernRailway.groups.io] On Behalf Of George Eichelberger
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 11:23 AM
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 Fw: [SouthernRailway] Southern box car preference, circa 1918

 

 
 

From: Edwin Locklin
Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2021 2:51 PM
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] 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

 

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


421 - 440 of 2238