Date   

locked Re: Walthers Mark III & Mark IV Flexi-Van Flatcar Models

Rodney Shu
 

I would like for those of you who managed the early handling of containers on flatcars  (without truck wheels or frames) for information as to why Southern initially handled  loading and unloading  of containers using overhead cranes that startled single track facilities at major  terminals. 

Rod S


From: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> on behalf of George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...>
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2021 1:59 PM
To: MFCL@groups.io <MFCL@groups.io>; PassengerCarList@groups.io <PassengerCarList@groups.io>; main@southernrailway.groups.io <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Walthers Mark III & Mark IV Flexi-Van Flatcar Models
 
The “story” of the decline in passenger trains and development of railroad intermodal services (at least on the Southern Railway) is much more intertwined than I believe is typically understood. There is a considerable amount of information in the SRHA archives that details how the Southern wanted to get out of the passenger business but did not want to lose the revenues from the Post Office. The PO started the shift to regional distribution centers at the same time reduced passenger train schedules made using the railroads to move the mail less of an option.

Terminal mail handling facilities, and people, were a railroad expense passed along to the Post Office. The PO accepted the Southern’s offer to containerize mail “door to door” at PO facilities with drayage by the railroad. The process began with the Southern stopping passenger trains at its new intermodal terminals to pick up and drop off Southern owned containers on CTTX flat cars. As the Post Office developed its regional distribution system, passenger train schedules (not easily altered because of established departure and arrival times) became more of a problem for the mail, the PO asked if dedicated freight trains could be operated. (Bypassing passenger terminals with containerized mail was a serious revenue loss for the terminals.)

SR President D.W. Brosnan (known to hate passenger services and anything not seen as an efficient moneymaker), agreed even if it meant running very short trains. The railroad offered selected shippers the opportunity to ship trailers on those same trains and “intermodal” services in the Southeast began. (The first interline services (in the East) appear to have been between the Southern and the B&O, another user of CTTX flats. The PRR, via Pot Yard was less interested as they considered N-S traffic short-haul business.)

So…my question about Flexi-Vans. Were they promoted by the Post Office or did railroads simply see them as an effective way to carry containers? The Southern Flexi-Van flats were all sold (?) to the NYC and the Strick containers (not easily adapted for std PB) were welded to chassis to become trailers as the Southern expanded its “Rail-Highway” strategy

Ike







locked Re: Walthers Mark III & Mark IV Flexi-Van Flatcar Models

George Eichelberger
 

The “story” of the decline in passenger trains and development of railroad intermodal services (at least on the Southern Railway) is much more intertwined than I believe is typically understood. There is a considerable amount of information in the SRHA archives that details how the Southern wanted to get out of the passenger business but did not want to lose the revenues from the Post Office. The PO started the shift to regional distribution centers at the same time reduced passenger train schedules made using the railroads to move the mail less of an option.

Terminal mail handling facilities, and people, were a railroad expense passed along to the Post Office. The PO accepted the Southern’s offer to containerize mail “door to door” at PO facilities with drayage by the railroad. The process began with the Southern stopping passenger trains at its new intermodal terminals to pick up and drop off Southern owned containers on CTTX flat cars. As the Post Office developed its regional distribution system, passenger train schedules (not easily altered because of established departure and arrival times) became more of a problem for the mail, the PO asked if dedicated freight trains could be operated. (Bypassing passenger terminals with containerized mail was a serious revenue loss for the terminals.)

SR President D.W. Brosnan (known to hate passenger services and anything not seen as an efficient moneymaker), agreed even if it meant running very short trains. The railroad offered selected shippers the opportunity to ship trailers on those same trains and “intermodal” services in the Southeast began. (The first interline services (in the East) appear to have been between the Southern and the B&O, another user of CTTX flats. The PRR, via Pot Yard was less interested as they considered N-S traffic short-haul business.)

So…my question about Flexi-Vans. Were they promoted by the Post Office or did railroads simply see them as an effective way to carry containers? The Southern Flexi-Van flats were all sold (?) to the NYC and the Strick containers (not easily adapted for std PB) were welded to chassis to become trailers as the Southern expanded its “Rail-Highway” strategy

Ike


locked SOU 44T Photo Request

David Friedlander
 

Hi all,

I'm trying to work through a queue of projects and one is finishing up an article for a 44T water cooler stand I created.  Nothing crazy, and it was based off this photo:
http://southern.railfan.net/images/archive/southern/switchers/sou1952a.html

I was trying to find Gerald Widemark, but unfortunately, it looks like the prolific CNW modeler/railfan passed away last April.  I'm contacting the CNWHS to see if perhaps they now own the rights to the photo, but if anyone else has the rights to a photo of a 44T with this version of water cooler stand, I'd be grateful for use of the photo in the article.

Attached is an image of my O-scale model based on a Williams by Bachmann 44-tonner.  I am pretty sure 1951 didn't have one, but I wanted to model this regardless as I thought it was neat.

Thanks,
David Friedlander



locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

George Eichelberger
 

Michael:

I have scanned a number of documents with those comparisons, many “fallen flags” are represented. I’ll try to post something this wekend.

Ike


On Apr 15, 2021, at 5:11 PM, michael lowe <jimhill1867@...> wrote:

   Since WW1 had started, it could be the USRA was upset, the the Southern  boxcars weren't big enough to load war supplies , when they were unloaded on other railroads.
suppose they shipped cotton bales to textile plants in New England . The textile plant might have to use another rr boxcar, to ship out unitforms to a military warehouse,
resulting in at least one extra switch, and the empty southern car having to move empty back to the Southern..
    It might be possible to check the official railway equipment register or other sources to see the boxcar capacity of other railroads in comparison.
   Michael Lowe


locked Need Help With Images for 2021-3 TIES

Bill Schafer
 

I'm trying to wrap up 2021-3 TIES - its deadline is April 25, and I don't have many (or any) images for the time period covered by the 3rd installment (1935-1950) of our Akron Branch series. If anyone can help with images of trains and structures on the Akron Branch (Selma-Marion Junction-Akron) in that time period, I'd be grateful. Heck, I'll take anything on the Mobile Division south of Selma. I'd especially like to see diesels on the Mobile Division 1946-1965, if possible. 

The main feature in 2021-3 TIES will be on the Chattanooga Traction Co 1913-1934. I could use photos of the CT's electric freight motors (they had at least one steeplecab, and may also have performed freight work with an electric box-express unit), and images of passenger cars in downtown Chattanooga or on the Market Street Bridge. I think I have exhausted the on-line sources, so what I'm looking for is a scan of an image you might have at home. 

Thanks in advance for your help - please reply to editor@.... Again, the deadline is April 25. Thanks.

--Bill Schafer


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

michael lowe
 

   Since WW1 had started, it could be the USRA was upset, the the Southern  boxcars weren't big enough to load war supplies , when they were unloaded on other railroads.
suppose they shipped cotton bales to textile plants in New England . The textile plant might have to use another rr boxcar, to ship out unitforms to a military warehouse,
resulting in at least one extra switch, and the empty southern car having to move empty back to the Southern..
    It might be possible to check the official railway equipment register or other sources to see the boxcar capacity of other railroads in comparison.
   Michael Lowe


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

Paul Staller
 

George-

I  agree with the other Paul.  These documents are fascinating.  Please keep them coming.  In the meantime, hope you are well safe and sane.  Have a really good day.

Paul


On Tue, 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

 


locked Re: Looking for Streamlined Observation Car Drumhead pictures

Rob Wingo
 

It would be great to get those back in the grab again.  


locked Re: Looking for Streamlined Observation Car Drumhead pictures

George Eichelberger
 

All three drawings are in the archives. We have not made more copies for sale since moving the Grab from Spencer to Chattanooga. As we return to train shows and RPM meets, we will start selling them again. The SR diesel paint and stencil drawings were also quite popular as were various General Arrangement drawings.

We can also make the various “Plan Packs” available again. Each included around twenty drawings (tabloid size) on a single Southern car. Quite a few people purchased them when they bought the corresponding WrightTrak kit. I expect we will see both categories available again some time this year.

Ike


On Apr 14, 2021, at 10:17 PM, Michael Cathey via groups.io <mike76cathey@...> wrote:

Seems like the Archives was selling large copies (11”x17”?) through The Grab some years ago, Southerner, Tennessean, Crescent.
Couldn’t locate my copies on first search (for the drawing numbers). I like to think I would have purchased all three.
Mike in Orange  
 
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
 


locked Re: Looking for Streamlined Observation Car Drumhead pictures

Michael Cathey
 

Seems like the Archives was selling large copies (11”x17”?) through The Grab some years ago, Southerner, Tennessean, Crescent.

Couldn’t locate my copies on first search (for the drawing numbers). I like to think I would have purchased all three.

Mike in Orange  

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


locked Looking for Streamlined Observation Car Drumhead pictures

Rob Wingo
 

I see about 10 years ago someone asked about Drumhead pictures.  I am in process of designing some streamliner decals for all the Southern trains.  I was going to issue a standard car decal which does 6 cars with numbers, good for modern repaints with the logo and then issue named sets for each train.  It would be nice to include the drumheads for each.  I searched all my ties mags back to 2015 and didn't find any other than some small crescent ones.
Thanks,
Rob


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

Paul Scheible
 

Ike

 

I find this sort of document fascinating.  They give insight to both the railroad and the larger society at the time.  Keep them coming.

 

Paul Scheible, CPA

(919) 382-2507

(919) 383-4711 (fax)

 

From: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io [mailto:main@SouthernRailway.groups.io] On Behalf Of John Stewart via groups.io
Sent: 04/13/2021 6:15 PM
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Southern box car preference, circa 1918

 


locked Southern box car preference, circa 1918 - and other notes

John Willis
 

Scott,

Careful about recommendations as to what to do with such onerous folk. I liken it to my rant about marketing toads. They are so toxic that there is nothing you can do with or to them. You can't for instance send them via rocket into the sun. After all you don't want to infect or destroy that stellar body, We depend on it. Likewise you can't send them out into deep space. The beings out there would not like that at all and would visit untold punishment for such intrusions. So, what then, do we do with them. It is difficult at best to ignore them. They infiltrate and infest all facets. I do not have an answer. Perhaps no one does.  I seems that we must endure and work around them as best we can.

My 2¢

John


 John C. Willis\

Likewise off my soapbox, Al


locked Re: Southern box car preference, circa 1918

George Eichelberger
 

Scott:

Thanks for the comment about attachments! I think you are setup as one of the list “owners”. I’ll check on that but among other things, it gives owners the ability to delete posts, and only attachments, I think.

Everyone probably knows there are two* Southern.io groups sponsored by SRHA, this one and “ModelingThe Southern”. As many people are on both, I hesitate to cross-post items on both but the distinction between modeling and prototype is not always clear cut. (The archives has kept me away from my workbench for the past few months but I hope to post more on “ModelingTheSouthern”.)

SRHA sees the .io groups as a way for people interested in the Southern Railway to pass information as well as an extension of the SRHA archives. I am not aware of any other list that has that linkage and uses it to distribute archives material. (Note: While we don’t take the time to put a copyright notice on every document, nothing posted from the archives should be used (to a large extent) commercially, in publications or distributed to others without permission.)

We expect to re-start full archives work sessions, in (hopefully) June. Please, everyone, make a plan to go to Chattanooga and spend some time at TVRM and the SRHA/L&NHS archives later this year.

Ike

* Actually, there are three .io lists. The third is for SRHA members only but so far, we are not limiting material only to members so it is not used much.


On Apr 13, 2021, at 11:02 PM, D. Scott Chatfield <blindog@...> wrote:

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 Fairfax Harrison's legacy

D. Scott Chatfield
 

Bill S wrote:

> Fairfax Harrison certainly didn’t/couldn’t adapt and it darn near bankrupted the railroad during the depression. 

Is this why I can't think of any facilities on the Southern named for him?  It seems all the other early presidents had a yard or something big named for them.  Did I miss something?


Scott Chatfield


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

461 - 480 of 2288