locked Drawing and Maps in the SRHA Archives


George Eichelberger
 

We don’t post many drawings or maps to the .io group simply because so many are quite large. Here’s one @ 207M fits that category. It’s from file discussing the expansion of Cincinnati Union Terminal in 1943. There are several CUT files in the archives starting with an early plan to build “Cincinnati Union Station”. Something certainly worth of research and a TIES article?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10RLlRwVzltBPI2nyNCHSuk2x0XxWKYT1/view?usp=sharing

Ike


George Eichelberger
 

Would someone please tell me of they succeeded in downloading the Cincy drawing in the Google Drive link?

You will see a message saying it is too large for Google Drive to display a view but if you click on the download icon (looks like a tray with a down arrow just above)) it will send you the entire .tiff file. You can open and expand it locally. (It may take a while to download depending on your Internet speed.)

Ike


rwbrv4
 

I got it just fine.  Looks good
  Wonder who scanned it?  Seems familiar.
Rick Bell




On Sunday, April 4, 2021 George Eichelberger <main@SouthernRailway.groups.io> wrote:

Would someone please tell me of they succeeded in downloading the Cincy drawing in the Google Drive link?

You will see a message saying it is too large for Google Drive to display a view but if you click on the download icon (looks like a tray with a down arrow just above)) it will send you the entire .tiff file. You can open and expand it locally. (It may take a while to download depending on your Internet speed.)

Ike


George Eichelberger
 

All:

Rick Bell does most of our large (!) scanning on our 42" machine. Large drawings, sometime is very poor condition, take a lot of work so we always have blueprints and drawings unscanned in files where most of the regular letter size docs have been scanned. The largest scan we have ever made was a linen of John Sevier yard that was 26 feet long! Needless to say, big drawings require multiple people.

If anyone has blueprints or any large drawing, they can bring it to an archives work session to be scanned...if time permits. If it is a Southern, L&N or Central of Georgia drawing and you want to put it in the archives, you are welcome to take a digital version. If you just want to make a scan but not donate the drawing, you'll need to leave a digital version. If you do not want to leave the original(s) but want to scan more than a small number, you need to be a SRHA member and/or make a cash donation to the archives.


Jim Thurston
 

Ike:

Downloaded fine
Came thru as 198 MB tiff
Opens fine in PS

Jim Thurston


From: "Ike Eichelberger" <geichelberger@...>
To: main@SouthernRailway.groups.io
Sent: Sunday, April 4, 2021 1:39:53 PM
Subject: Re: [SouthernRailway] Drawing and Maps in the SRHA Archives

Would someone please tell me of they succeeded in downloading the Cincy drawing in the Google Drive link?

You will see a message saying it is too large for Google Drive to display a view but if you click on the download icon (looks like a tray with a down arrow just above)) it will send you the entire .tiff file. You can open and expand it locally. (It may take a while to download depending on your Internet speed.)

Ike


 

It downloaded fine here as well. I've seen either this drawing or a similar one to it previously. The development of McClean Avenue Yard, which was later removed to make way for Cincinnati Union Terminal...and then Gest Street Yard was created is something I'm working on actively. Of course, once CUT's concourse was demolished, Southern Railway purchased that property to create the pig yard still in use today. That actually could be a series of articles. It's a lot of change to cover. The creation of McClean Yard is quite the tale all by itself!

Here is a scan of a print donated by Lee Vaughn of the creation of Gest Street Yard on Nov 20 1930, looking north. All that fresh earth came from Bald Knob, which is in the background in this photo. Two steam shovels that were once used to build the Panama Canal took the entire top of Bald Knob off to create all the fill necessary to build Cincinnati  Union Terminal.

And when it comes to large document scanning, I'm working on a plan to have all the Cincinnati Railroad Club oversize drawings scanned more locally. We've got more than 1,000 of them (basically one of the only complete CUT diagram sets in existence). 

-Chris 


George Eichelberger
 

Chris:

SRHA had a very successful convention in Cincinnati years ago. The Erlanger depot had just been (beautifully) restored and it was still possible to go into the tower at the Terminal. We should plan another session there!

We would also like to see a RPM/train show in Chattanooga next year. If (!) that happens, maybe we can get some of the folks down from Cincy and along the CNO&TP.

Ike

PS Here are three scans (Presidents’  File  Box 180 File 6355) of the cost estimate for the proposed “Union Passenger Terminals” for Cincinnati from March 25, 1909. (Note the reference on Pg 2 to “five portfolios of drawings”. Do they exist?)





On Apr 4, 2021, at 2:59 PM, CMayhew <chris.mayhew611@...> wrote:

It downloaded fine here as well. I've seen either this drawing or a similar one to it previously. The development of McClean Avenue Yard, which was later removed to make way for Cincinnati Union Terminal...and then Gest Street Yard was created is something I'm working on actively. Of course, once CUT's concourse was demolished, Southern Railway purchased that property to create the pig yard still in use today. That actually could be a series of articles. It's a lot of change to cover. The creation of McClean Yard is quite the tale all by itself!

Here is a scan of a print donated by Lee Vaughn of the creation of Gest Street Yard on Nov 20 1930, looking north. All that fresh earth came from Bald Knob, which is in the background in this photo. Two steam shovels that were once used to build the Panama Canal took the entire top of Bald Knob off to create all the fill necessary to build Cincinnati  Union Terminal.

And when it comes to large document scanning, I'm working on a plan to have all the Cincinnati Railroad Club oversize drawings scanned more locally. We've got more than 1,000 of them (basically one of the only complete CUT diagram sets in existence). 

-Chris  <Nov 20 1930 looking north Gest Street Yard.jpg>


aramsay18
 

Hello all

Such old engineering artifacts are not seen very often and are highly respected for what they represent.  

I just want to point out that aside from its historical significance, this drawing is a strikingly excellent example of engineering mechanical drafting/drawing state-of-the-art practice in the 1940s to late 1970s.  It is a what-if markup of an existing blueprint.  It appears to be all hand drawn (using various drafting instruments such as french curves, possibly customized french curves, large radius compasses, etc.) from tables of survey data.  The person or persons who prepared this document spent many, many hours, more likely many weeks, working to first draw it, then to validate it.  He would be given a design, perhaps at the top level, and would be expected to take it to the detailed level shown.  He would have to have significant operational knowledge of how the rail layout should work to meet a complex set of functional requirements which change over time as rail operations progress. Drawing and validating this layout would require painstaking, meticulous work by hand to fit curves to the survey data and to ensure the fit was highly accurate as to the actual layout.  A senior designer and draftsman, a highly respected engineering professional, would have supervised its preparation, and possibly done much of it himself.  Not to mention this is a blueprint.  The original would have been prepared on a vellum surface (like parchment) or high-grade paper using India ink. Mistakes in that media would be wiped off with an alcohol/water mix or scraped off with a razor blade.  The original would have taken months of work.

Nowadays this would all be generated using computer-based tools.  The curve fitting to match the digital survey data would be generated in a few minutes on a PC-scale computer.  Any misfits would be easily adjusted graphically.  This quick cycle would enable many iterations of what-if drills to optimize the layout to its corresponding requirements.  It would also enable collaborative reviews for approval.  The tabular form would be taken directly from highly accurate digital survey data collected on the ground, possibly supplemented by overhead imagery to include LIDAR to show elevation data.  There is an impressive contrast in engineering productivity over almost 80 years.

Were these proposed changes/additions implemented?

Respectfully,

Andrew Ramsay
Berryville VA


On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 9:52 PM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
We don’t post many drawings or maps to the .io group simply because so many are quite large. Here’s one @ 207M fits that category. It’s from file discussing the expansion of Cincinnati Union Terminal in 1943. There are several CUT files in the archives starting with an early plan to build “Cincinnati Union Station”. Something certainly worth of research and a TIES article?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10RLlRwVzltBPI2nyNCHSuk2x0XxWKYT1/view?usp=sharing

Ike







George Eichelberger
 

Andrew:

One of the first things we show visitors to the archives are examples of our ink-on-linen drawings. When I explain they are high thread count linen cloth coated with starch then drawn on using ink pens, I’m never sure if I am believed. College students tell me they have never seen similar drawings. The twenty-six foot long drawing of John Sevier yard I mentioned was several pieces of linen spliced together and then used for the drawing. The SRHA archives contain hundreds of linen originals, some dating to the 1880s that are in perfect condition. Some early versions of ink on Mylar suffer from separation between the Mylar base and the coating that holds the ink. Even moving one of those drawings can result in a blizzard of flakes as more of the top layer detaches.

We also have many whiteline and blueline prints. If they are not exposed to light, they hold up well except many were folded and stored in file cabinets for years. The folds become quite dark and are hard to scan. Sometimes the folds become so brittle, opening them is difficult.

It has not happened often but there are times when we realize putting a drawing in a carrier (a plastic sleeve) and running it through the scanner might damage it beyond further use. Our logic (some may disagree with) is that in most cases we do not consider a drawing as an artifact. It is the information on the drawing that we can preserve with the best quality scan we can make.

Ike

PS We also show people some of the hundred thousand or so drawings on microfilm aperture cards in the collection. The 35mm microfilm is mounted in standard (circa 1960s) IBM 80 column Hollerith punch cards that could be sorted and the punches read. (I was carrying a tray of them in the elevator at NS one day when some IT people asked what they were. I pulled one of them out, showed them how the punches were laid out and told them they were the new way we would be storing data. The door opened and I stepped out leaving them wondering what I was up to.)



On Apr 4, 2021, at 6:01 PM, aramsay18 <aramsay37@...> wrote:

Hello all

Such old engineering artifacts are not seen very often and are highly respected for what they represent.  

I just want to point out that aside from its historical significance, this drawing is a strikingly excellent example of engineering mechanical drafting/drawing state-of-the-art practice in the 1940s to late 1970s.  It is a what-if markup of an existing blueprint.  It appears to be all hand drawn (using various drafting instruments such as french curves, possibly customized french curves, large radius compasses, etc.) from tables of survey data.  The person or persons who prepared this document spent many, many hours, more likely many weeks, working to first draw it, then to validate it.  He would be given a design, perhaps at the top level, and would be expected to take it to the detailed level shown.  He would have to have significant operational knowledge of how the rail layout should work to meet a complex set of functional requirements which change over time as rail operations progress. Drawing and validating this layout would require painstaking, meticulous work by hand to fit curves to the survey data and to ensure the fit was highly accurate as to the actual layout.  A senior designer and draftsman, a highly respected engineering professional, would have supervised its preparation, and possibly done much of it himself.  Not to mention this is a blueprint.  The original would have been prepared on a vellum surface (like parchment) or high-grade paper using India ink. Mistakes in that media would be wiped off with an alcohol/water mix or scraped off with a razor blade.  The original would have taken months of work.

Nowadays this would all be generated using computer-based tools.  The curve fitting to match the digital survey data would be generated in a few minutes on a PC-scale computer.  Any misfits would be easily adjusted graphically.  This quick cycle would enable many iterations of what-if drills to optimize the layout to its corresponding requirements.  It would also enable collaborative reviews for approval.  The tabular form would be taken directly from highly accurate digital survey data collected on the ground, possibly supplemented by overhead imagery to include LIDAR to show elevation data.  There is an impressive contrast in engineering productivity over almost 80 years.

Were these proposed changes/additions implemented?

Respectfully,

Andrew Ramsay
Berryville VA

On Sat, Apr 3, 2021 at 9:52 PM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
We don’t post many drawings or maps to the .io group simply because so many are quite large. Here’s one @ 207M fits that category. It’s from file discussing the expansion of Cincinnati Union Terminal in 1943. There are several CUT files in the archives starting with an early plan to build “Cincinnati Union Station”. Something certainly worth of research and a TIES article?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10RLlRwVzltBPI2nyNCHSuk2x0XxWKYT1/view?usp=sharing

Ike








Brian Clark
 

Andrew

I can’t speak about the additional tracks in the coach yard and over by the roundhouse, but the tracks at the end of the concourse were added for military trains during WWII.  The added tracks can be seen on the train directors board in Tower A at what is now the Cincinnati Museum Center (https://www.cincymuseum.org/) .  The board can be seen in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKox1GO9isQ  The added tracks are on an extension at the bottom of the board.

 

In normal times, Tower A is open to the public, but I am not sure of it’s status during COVID.  More information on the history of Cincinnati Union Terminal can be found on the Cincinnati Railroad Club site (http://www.cincinnatirrclub.org/).

 

Brian Clark

Frankfort, KY

 

 

 

Were these proposed changes/additions implemented?

 

Respectfully,

 

Andrew Ramsay

Berryville VA

 

 


John Stewart
 

Hi folks

 

I was able to download the CUT drawing without any problems.  Quite a picture

 

John

 

John R Stewart

www.bhamrails.info

205-901-3790

 

image004

 


aramsay18
 

I was able to download the whole drawing from the Google Drive link without any issues.

Andy Ramsay
Berryville VA

On Sun, Apr 4, 2021 at 1:39 PM George Eichelberger <geichelberger@...> wrote:
Would someone please tell me of they succeeded in downloading the Cincy drawing in the Google Drive link?

You will see a message saying it is too large for Google Drive to display a view but if you click on the download icon (looks like a tray with a down arrow just above)) it will send you the entire .tiff file. You can open and expand it locally. (It may take a while to download depending on your Internet speed.)

Ike


 

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


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