Pipe Shipments in the 1950s

May 27, 2014, 8:32 pm

There's been a thread on shipping lengths of pipe in open-top cars on the STMFC. That prompted me to take a look at the ICC 1% Carload Waybill survey to see if I could address some basic questions about these commodity flows. I was particularly interested in the relative frequencies of car types used for shipping pipe, characteristic points of origin, the spatial pattern of the commodity flows, and how they changed over time.

The Commodity Classes

I looked at three of the 261 commodity classes for this study. The three classes were:

Cast Iron Pipe & Fittings (585)
Iron & Steel Pipe & Fittings (587)
Sewer Pipe (Not Metal) (649)

Note that in the ICC commodity classification system the distinguishing characteristic is the material the pipe is made from. The pipe fittings are lumped into the same commodity class as the pipe itself. This study doesn't look at redwood water pipe (which was recorded in commodity class 499, Products of Forests N.O.S. This was a catch-all commodity class with a large number of miscellaneous commodities that is not amenable to analysis.) or brass or copper pipe (which were recorded under 561, Copper Brass and Bronze along with a large number of other unrelated commodities).

These are the commodities included in class 585, pipe and fittings made from cast iron:

585	Cast Iron Pipe and Fittings
	Cast iron pipe
	Culverts, cast iron
	Fittings for cast iron pipe
	Pipe valves, cast iron
	Soil Pipe, cast iron

Cast iron pipes were used primarily for the transmission of water, gas, and sewage. Their end uses are largely in construction and development.

Commodity class 587 contains those iron and steel pipes and fittings NOT made of cast iron:

587	Iron and Steel Pipe and Fittings, N.O.S.
	Conduit, iron or steel
	Oil well casings, iron or steel
	Pipe fittings, iron or steel
	Pipe hangers, iron or steel
	Pipe, iron or steel noibn
	Pipe, tin plate
	Pipe valves, iron or steel
	Pipe, wrought iron
	Tubing, iron or steel

The uses of these pipes was much broader, ranging from utility work to uses in well drilling and industrial applications. Some of this pipe was also exported to Europe in the 1950s.

Finally, commodity class 649 includes pipes made from materials other than metal, which were used primarily for drain tiling and storm sewer lines:

649	Sewer Pipe and Drain Tile (Not Metal)
	Conduit, cement
	Conduit, clay
	Conduit, concrete
	Conduit, terra cotta
	Culverts, cement
	Culverts, clay
	Culverts, concrete
	Drain pipe (not metal), noibn
	Drain tile, clay or earthen
	Drain tile, concrete
	Drain tile heads, concrete
	Fittings, pipe and tile, clay, concrete, or earthen
	Irrigation pipe, clay
	Pipe, sewer, cement
	Pipe, sewer, clay
	Pipe, sewer, concrete

National Statistics

I looked at two time frames, the early 1950s (centered on 1952) and the late 1950s (centered on 1957). This table shows the national statistics from 1952:

Class	Commodity	Carloads	<Ton/Car>	<Haul/Car>	<Rev/Car>
585	Cast Iron Pipe FTGS	361	29	702	433
587	I and S Pipe FTGS	2,214	33	789	592
649	Sewer Pipe Not Metal	464	24	411	168

which can be compared with this table containing the same data from 1957:

Class	Commodity	Carloads	<Ton/Car>	<Haul/Car>	<Rev/Car>
585	Cast Iron Pipe FTGS	295	31	697	448
587	I and S Pipe FTGS	2,226	36	701	586
649	Sewer Pipe Not Metal	160	21	579	277

These figures for carloads refer to the number in the sample. The total national rail traffic in these commodity classes can be estimated by multiplying the carload number by 100. Clearly the rail shipments are dominated by iron and steel pipe and fittings, with cast iron pipe and fittings and sewer pipe about an order of magnitude less frequently shipped by rail. Cast iron and non-metallic sewer pipe show a declining trend with respect to time but the Iron and Steel Pipe & Fittings commodity class appears to be fairly stable across the 1950s. This is probably because of the diversity of the end uses of the commodities in the class. Also note that non-metallic sewer pipe travels a much shorter line haul per car than the metallic pipes, and weight and revenue per car is much smaller.

Types of Cars Loaded

This table shows the percentage of types of cars loaded in 1952 for the three commodity classes:

Class	Commodity	Box	Stock	Ref	Gon	Flat
585	Cast Iron Pipe FTGS	24.4%	0.0%	0.0%	75.3%	0.3%
587	I and S Pipe FTGS	8.8%	0.0%	0.2%	89.1%	1.9%
649	Sewer Pipe Not Metal	73.0%	1.3%	0.0%	10.3%	15.5%

This is the corresponding table for 1957:

Class	Commodity	Box	Stock	Ref	Gon	Flat
585	Cast Iron Pipe FTGS	24.4%	0.0%	0.0%	71.5%	4.1%
587	I and S Pipe FTGS	5.6%	0.0%	0.1%	87.8%	6.5%
649	Sewer Pipe Not Metal	80.0%	0.0%	0.0%	13.1%	6.9%

For the metallic pipes and fittings (classes 585 and 587) the predominant car type is gondolas. The box car shipments for these commodity classes show a pronounced bimodal distribution in the mileage blocks and weight blocks, which suggests that the box car shipments for classes 585 and 587 involved different commodities than the gondolas and flat cars. I inferred that the box car shipments were probably the fittings, packed in wood boxes, while the gondola and flat car shipments were mostly the pipes themselves.

A lot of the non-metallic pipes (class 649) were shipped in boxcars, with gondolas and flat cars much less frequently used. The mileage block and weight block statistics for these car types were quite similar, and I inferred that they were likely distinguished by size and weight rather than by commodity.

State to State Distributions

Almost all of the shipments of cast iron pipe and fittings originated in Alabama in the 1950s, primarily in the Birmingham and Bessemer areas. U.S. Pipe was one of the major shippers. The commodity flow had a nationwide reach. This map shows the distribution of consignees for shipments of cast iron pipe and fittings that were shipped from Alabama in 1952 (click to enlarge):

And in 1957:

Almost half of the iron and steel pipe and fittings (not cast iron) originated in Ohio and Pennsylvania. The commodity flows from both of these state had a nationwide reach with a high intensity. This map shows the distribution of consignees from iron and steel pipe and fittings from shippers in Ohio (the distribution from shippers in Pennsylvania is qualitatively similar) in 1952:

and in 1957:

I found it mildly surprising that the dominant shipping state of non-metallic sewer pipe was also Ohio (the second-place state was Iowa). The commodity flows are regional in scale and much less intense in 1952:

And in 1957:

Summary and Modeling Notes

Rail shipment of cast iron and iron and steel pipes was a strong commodity flow in the 1950s, comprising about 1 out of every 100 freight shipments nationally (roughly 3,000 shipments per year in the sample versus roughly 300,000 total shipments in the sample).
Gondolas were the primary type of car associated with cast iron and iron and steel pipes. Flat cars were a distant second (but with an increasing presence toward the end of the decade).
Box cars were primarily used for the shipment of non-metallic pipe and fittings, and probably iron and steel pipe fittings as well.
Almost all of the shipments of cast iron pipes and fittings originated in Alabama, probably in Bessemer and Birmingham. U.S. Pipe was one of the major shippers. Originating line haul carriers could include ACL, CG, SLSF, GMO, IC, L&N, SAL, and SOU. These shipments had a nationwide reach and a load of cast iron pipe in a gondola per every 1,000 or so freight car shipments would not be out of place in either overhead traffic or consigned to a contracting supplier or lay down yard.
Half of the shipments of iron and steel pipe and fittings (not cast) originated in Ohio and Pennsylvania, although many other states contributed to the commodity flow. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. is one of my personal favorites, but almost any major mill with rolling and welding capacity could and did turn out steel pipe. There are many possibilities for originating line haul carriers associated with a variety of mills. These shipments also had a nationwide reach, and a load of iron or steel pipe in a gondola would be expected to appear about 1 in every 100 or so shipments. These loads would be at home in overhead traffic in almost any area or consigned locally to utilities, construction suppliers, well field suppliers, and a number of industrial processes.
Shipments of non-metallic pipe were much less frequent than the metallic pipes and tended to be more regional in character. Ohio shipped a lot of clay pipe in the 1950s, followed by Iowa and a handful of other states. About 4/5 of the shipments of nonmetallic pipes were in box cars, with the remaining 1/5 in gondolas or flat cars.
Iron pipe about 11" in diameter weighed between 29 and 47 lbs/linear foot in the 1950s, and could be cast or welded in lengths ranging from 5 feet to 60 feet. A 40 lb/ft pipe that is 40 feet long would weigh about 1,600 lbs. It would take about 37 of these pipes to make up a 30 ton load (60,000 lbs). Tony Thompson's gondola loads made from tubular coffee stirrers http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/05/open-car-loads-more-pipe-loads.html approximate this pipe. It looks to me as if Tony's pipe loads have about 32 or so pipes in them, which should be about right for a light load. A longer gondola with longer (and heavier) pipe would probably have fewer pipes.

Charles Hostetler

Fort Collins, Colorado

↧

Grain to Export Elevators

June 1, 2014, 4:53 pm

≫ Next: Background for Prototype Rails 2014

≪ Previous: Pipe Shipments in the 1950s

Andy Laurent and I share several common modeling interests; one of them is that we both are modeling harbor areas. Andy's new layout, set in 1952, features the Port of Green Bay, while mine, set in 1957, has the Port of Milwaukee as its setting. So when Andy asked whether there was a way to estimate the rail-delivered commodity flows of grain through an export elevator the question caught my attention.

Approach

It seemed reasonable to us to assume that the distribution of grains shipped by rail and terminating at an export elevator in Wisconsin could be modeled to first order by the distribution of grains shipped by rail that terminated in Wisconsin. So I proposed to look at the 1% Carload Waybill results for the appropriate grain commodity classes and find all the carloads in 1952 and 1957 that terminated in Wisconsin. After applying a few secondary adjustments (explained in detail below) this post will present the results of the analysis. In a follow up post, we'll compare our estimates to statistics kept by the Ports that date from the 1960s.

Why Bother?

First we want to address the question "Why bother?". If your primary interest is in delivering 40' box cars of "grain" to the elevator siding and flipping car cards, and if your operators "never read that part of the waybill", then this may be way too much detail for you. It is certainly not necessary to have this level of information to set up an operating session. But we would suggest that there are some considerations related to the types of grain shipped to elevators that might add operational interest:

The different types of grain may be shipped in different types of freight cars. It turns out that this isn't the case for the 1950s (see detailed discussion below), but it is certainly possible that in later times as the use of covered hoppers increased, that the distribution of car types observed at an export elevator was a function of the types of grains shipped.
The different types of grain may arrive at the export elevator at different times. The "grain rush" wasn't a single distinct period of time each and every year. If you want to use commodity flows as a time marker to add a distinct flavor to your operational setting, then it seems reasonable to consider the types of grain in a seasonal context.
The different types of grain may arrive at the export elevator from different origins. For my setting, there are 9 different general routes by which freight cars arrive at the Port. Each of these routes has a different time of arrival and blocking scheme (order of the cars) as the cars appear on the layout from staging.

Besides all that, I think its just fun to see what sort of questions can be answered by the 1% Carload Waybill Sample, and I enjoy the process of reconstructing historical commodity flows.

The Commodity Classes

The commodity classes that might be associated with an export elevator are fairly self explanatory. The classes we investigated are:

001 - Wheat
003 - Corn
005 - Sorghum Grain
007 - Oats
009 - Barley and Rye
011 - Rice
013 - Grain N.O.S.
043 - Soybeans

Sorghum grain was used in the 1950s as a ingredient in animal feed and to make molasses. It was primarily grown in the southeastern U. S. The commodity class Grain N.O.S. is a catch all class (N.O.S. means Not Otherwise Specified). The commodities listed by the ICC in this class are buckwheat, popcorn, spelt, and grain noibn (noibn means not otherwise indexed by name).

National Statistics

First we constructed a table from the 1% Carload Samples from 1947 through 1960 to identify which of these commodity classes were the important actors and whether there were any gross temporal trends. This chart shows the data (click to enlarge or download):

Clearly on a national basis the commodity flows of grains were dominated by wheat and corn. An analysis of the data shows considerable variation about the average of the 14-year period. In all cases, the yearly variation (the row labeled Std Dev is an estimate of the variation from year to year) is much greater than the uncertainty in the sample (the row labeled Uncert is an estimate of the sampling error). So these temporal changes are real, not artifacts of the survey or sampling methodology, and can be used as time markers. They reflect good/bad harvests, changes in rail versus freight traffic, differences in export networks and production, etc.

Year	Wheat	Corn	Sorghum	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
1947	8,559	4,679	516	1,500	1,455	297	72	906
1948	7,971	3,096	419	1,153	1,170	288	50	983
1949	7,077	3,853	532	1,103	1,321	335	43	1,249
1950	5,437	3,262	814	878	1,017	340	46	989
1951	6,799	3,660	1,131	865	1,073	374	44	1,219
1952	6,635	3,604	524	861	971	459	34	1,252
1953	5,965	3,626	197	898	833	435	42	1,227
1954	5,914	3,349	585	885	1,012	400	34	1,143
1955	5,656	3,407	661	924	1,257	536	37	1,425
1956	6,609	3,491	595	866	1,514	589	36	1,307
1957	5,790	4,168	906	714	1,292	405	24	1,387
1958	6,434	3,962	1,931	786	1,586	324	28	1,472
1959	5,922	3,772	1,418	738	1,241	340	13	1,600
1960	6,646	3,777	1,639	657	1,048	372	18	1,628

Avg	6,530	3,693	848	916	1,199	392	37	1,271
Std Dev	885	402	504	215	221	88	15	221
Uncert	81	61	29	30	35	20	6	36

Freight Car Types

The next two tables show the distribution of freight car types for the different commodity classes. This table is for 1952:

Car	Wheat	Corn	Sorghum	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
Box	6,621	3,634	522	870	980	457	34	1,258
Refrig	1	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Stock	11	4	5	0	0	0	0	0
Gondola	7	2	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hopper	23	9	0	0	0	1	0	5
Special	28	3	0	0	0	3	0	1

%Box	98.95%	99.51%	99.05%	100%	100%	98.92%	100%	99.53%

And this table is for 1957:

Car	Wheat	Corn	Sorghum	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
Box	5,767	4,158	886	712	1,282	377	23	1,386
Refrig	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0
Stock	1	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Gondola	0	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Hopper	6	3	3	0	6	9	0	1
Flat	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Special	16	6	17	2	4	17	0	0

%Box	99.60%	99.76%	97.79%	100%	99%	93.09%	96%	99.93%

For all of these commodity classes, at least 99 out of every 100 shipments were made in box cars. This result is not time dependent. I looked at the data from 1960 as well and the results were the same. The transition from shipping grain in box cars to shipping in covered hoppers (which would show up as Special in the tables above) post-dated 1960.

Seasonality

The quarterly summaries that were prepared by the ICC cover the period 1947 through 1952. I found the results interesting as there are several different types of behavior as can be seen from this graph:

Wheat shipments show a strong seasonal peak that is fairly regular. Corn shipments show a much more irregular pattern, the peak widths are broader, and the peak heights are not nearly as pronounced. Oat shipments hardly have a seasonal variation at all. These results suggest that in the late 1940s and early 1950s the grain rush was not a short distinct event that occurred with regularity each year. There was a more complex pattern to the commodity flows as the out-of-phase waves constructively and destructively interfered.

The State to State Flows - First Order Solution

We next looked at the state to state flows, selecting the commodity flows from any state that terminated in Wisconsin. This table shows the raw data for 1952:

To Wisconsin
From:	Wheat	Corn	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
California	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Colorado	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Idaho	0	1	0	6	0	0	0
Illinois	0	18	1	0	1	0	0
Indiana	4	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	1	17	1	1	0	0	0
Kansas	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Louisiana	0	0	0	0	5	0	0
Michigan	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Minnesota	25	40	22	162	0	2	4
Montana	63	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nebraska	6	0	0	1	0	0	0
North Dakota	188	0	1	9	0	0	0
Oregon	0	0	0	9	0	0	0
South Dakota	14	2	0	2	0	0	0
Texas	0	0	0	0	2	0	0
Washington	0	0	0	4	0	0	0
Wisconsin	1	5	4	19	0	1	0

Total	308	83	29	214	8	3	4
	47.5%	12.8%	4.5%	33.0%	1.2%	0.5%	0.6%

And this is the corresponding table for 1957:

To Wisconsin
From:	Wheat	Corn	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
Arkansas	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
California	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Colorado	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Idaho	0	0	0	5	0	0	0
Illinois	0	20	0	0	0	9	0
Indiana	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	0	28	39	0	0	0	1
Kansas	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
Louisiana	0	0	0	0	5	0	0
Michigan	0	0	0	0	0	4	0
Minnesota	27	4	15	136	0	50	0
Missouri	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
Montana	25	0	0	1	0	0	0
Nebraska	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
North Dakota	132	1	8	29	0	3	0
Oregon	0	0	0	7	0	0	0
South Dakota	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Texas	0	0	0	0	3	0	0
Wisconsin	1	14	6	31	0	0	0

Total	191	69	68	209	8	74	1
	30.8%	11.1%	11.0%	33.7%	1.3%	11.9%	0.2%

These results show that shipments of wheat made up between a third and one half of the grain commodity flows to Wisconsin, that barley made up another third, and that the remainder was scattered between corn, oats, and other grains (Grain N.O.S.). They also shows that North Dakota and Minnesota were important shipping states. Note the rise in Grain N.O.S. shipments (primarily from Minnesota) in 1957 relative to 1952 - this rise is greater than the sampling error and seems to represent a one-year event rather than a trend.

Second Order Corrections

Note that in both of these tables the rows for Illinois, Indiana, and Iowa are highlighted yellow. Each of these states had a well developed export network and it seems unlikely that a lot of this rail traffic was destined for export elevators in Wisconsin. Similarly, the columns for barley and rice are highlighted in yellow. Wisconsin had a high demand for barley (to make malt) and rice to support its brewing industry. It also seems likely that a lot of these two commodity flows were to support in-state consumptive uses rather than for export. So we reduced the commodity flows from those three states and from those two commodity classes by 90% (a somewhat arbitrary number) to come up with this estimate for 1952:

To Wisconsin
From:	Wheat	Corn	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
California	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Colorado	1	0	0	0	0	0	0
Idaho	0	1	0	1	0	0	0
Illinois	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Indiana	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	0	2	0	0	0	0	0
Kansas	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Louisiana	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Michigan	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Minnesota	25	40	22	16	0	2	4
Montana	63	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nebraska	6	0	0	0	0	0	0
North Dakota	188	0	1	1	0	0	0
Oregon	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
South Dakota	14	2	0	0	0	0	0
Texas	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Washington	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wisconsin	1	5	4	2	0	1	0

Total	304	52	27	21	1	3	4
	73.8%	12.5%	6.6%	5.2%	0.2%	0.7%	1.0%

and this estimate for 1957:

To Wisconsin
From:	Wheat	Corn	Oats	Barley	Rice	Grain NOS	Soybeans
Arkansas	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
California	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Colorado	0	0	0	0	0	1	0
Idaho	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
Illinois	0	2	0	0	0	1	0
Indiana	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Iowa	0	3	4	0	0	0	0
Kansas	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
Louisiana	0	0	0	0	1	0	0
Michigan	0	0	0	0	0	4	0
Minnesota	27	4	15	14	0	50	0
Missouri	0	0	0	0	0	3	0
Montana	25	0	0	0	0	0	0
Nebraska	1	0	0	0	0	1	0
North Dakota	132	1	8	3	0	3	0
Oregon	0	0	0	1	0	0	0
South Dakota	5	0	0	0	0	0	0
Texas	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Wisconsin	1	14	6	3	0	0	0

Total	191	24	33	21	1	66	0
	56.9%	7.2%	9.8%	6.2%	0.2%	19.6%	0.0%

Summary

On a national basis during the late 1940s and 1950s, the predominant commodity flows in grain were comprised of wheat and corn. Soybean shipments showed a secular upward trend during this time. Yearly commodity flows for all grains were moderately variable about the mean.
More than 99 grain shipments out of 100 were in box cars.
There was a seasonality to grain shipments, but the seasonality wasn't characterized by a simple regular peak that occurred at the same time each year.
For export elevators in Wisconsin in 1952, our model suggests that at least 75% of the shipments of grain were wheat, about 12% were corn, and the rest scattered among several commodity classes. A lot of the traffic came from North Dakota, Montana, and Minnesota.
For export elevators in Wisconsin in 1957, our model suggests that about 60% of the shipments of grain were wheat, about 20% Grain N.O.S., and the remainder scatted among several commodity classes. A lot of the traffic came from North Dakota, Minnesota, and Montana.

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

Background for Prototype Rails 2014

November 21, 2013, 6:47 pm

≫ Next: Background for PR 2014 - Addendum

≪ Previous: Grain to Export Elevators

This post contains background information for my Prototype Rails presentation in January 2004. It deals with the general problem of printing white using a laser printer with an emphasis on the hardware and how it needs to be modified.

The monitor/display screen on which you are reading this post is conceptually equivalent to printing color (including white) on a black piece of paper. Each address on the screen (indicating a picture element, or pixel) has three color values associated with it. They are called red, green, and blue and abbreviated as an ordered triplet (R,G,B). When R, G, and B are all zero (0,0,0) then no color is applied to that pixel and the black of the paper shows through, as in the body of the lettering of this text. When R, G, and B are all at their maximum value (255,255,255) then the full three colors are applied to that pixel; they mix together to make white. There are 16, 777,216 (R,G,B) combinations altogether and they make up the family of colors that your monitor/display screen can generate. In this scheme, white is generated as the combination of full red, green, and blue.

For technical (and historical) reasons, a color printer works a bit differently. The basic idea is predicated on the notion that the paper is white, so no facility for printing white is provided. Instead the emphasis is on accurate rendition of the color spectrum and getting a good rich black. Inside a color laser printer there are four toner cartridges; they contain very fine powders of four process colors. The color specification internal to the printer (more on this in the next post) for a pixel is a given amount of Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and blacK and is abbreviated (CMYK). When the color laser printer prints out a pixel, it applies a mixture of each of the four process colors that is designed to reproduce the corresponding RGB color specified by the artwork. So the computer sends a string of (RGB) color values to the printer, and the printer decodes these into valve settings for the (CMYK) cartridges. If everything works properly, all of the colors on a computer screen can be rendered onto the printed page. Except for white! But hey, the page itself is white so we'll say the the absence of any color values (0,0,0) is white by default.

For those of us that want to print white on a clear film (i.e., the aspiring decal printers) using a laser printer, the absence of a process white is a problem. And that's a real limitation for those of us modeling steam-era freight cars - a lot of the lettering was white stencil paste over a darker color base coat. As far as I have been able to determine, there is no reasonably affordable OEM solution. A five-cartridge color laser printer (C,M,Y,K,W) would be really nice but there's really no market demand...

There is an aftermarket approach using laser printing technology that is moderately expensive, which I'm experimenting with to learn the tricks of the trade. The approach (as designed by the vendor) is to replace the 4 process color cartridges in the printer with 4 white toner cartridges, or more precisely with 4 empty reconditioned toner cartridges into which you pour white toner. The approach that I implemented was a slight modification. I wanted to have the capability to print gray as well as white, so I kept the black (K) cartridge and replaced the C, M, and Y cartridges with white.

Why an OKI printer?

The vendor specifies an OKI printer. I already had an HP color laser printer and just wanted some white cartridges for it. It took me a while to get over a mild huff and understand the reason for the OKI printer. It has to do with the way the toner cartridges and imaging drums are assembled.

Here's my HP color laser printer; compact, reliable, and easy on toner (click to enlarge):

Inside the printer, in a sliding drawer, the four process color cartridges are arranged (K, C, M, and Y) in order from front to back:

This is the C cartridge upside down. The bigger blue roller in front is actually an imaging drum. This gets hit by the laser beam and makes sticky spots for the toner grab onto, and then the toner is transferred onto the paper and fused. Behind the big blue roller is a smaller roller which is actually colored by the cyan (a shade of blue) toner. On the top of the cartridge (which is at the bottom in this photo because the cartridge is upside down) is a reservoir of this cyan powder. The powder falls down out of the reservoir onto the smaller roller, which is contact with the imaging drum, and the powder is transferred to the imaging drum and then onto the paper.

This is a nice little self-contained bit of technology, and it works well, but the problem is there's no easy way to take it apart, clean it out, put white toner inside the reconditioned assembly, and seal it back up. Everything is designed for a single use (or factory reconditioning) so there's no easy way to get a good supply of clean white toner inside one of the HP cartridges.

Here's the OKI printer. It's a lot bigger than the HP, and heavier. I originally thought this was an example of less elegant engineering, and it may be that, but its also an example of an assembly that is easier to get inside to the guts:

These are the process color cartridges inside the top of the OKI printer. The one closest to the camera is the blacK (K) cartridge. The other three behind it are all clean, remanufactured cartridges into which I have poured white toner:

Like the HP design, the OKI design combines toner storage with an imaging drum into the printer cartridge assembly. Unlike the HP, it is a two piece assembly that is designed to easily come apart (by the user - NOT in some factory). In this photo, I've taken the cartridge apart into its two components:

The component at the lower left is a regular OKI toner cartridge (which is upside down in this photo). It doesn't matter whether it contains C, M, Y, or K because the only role it plays in the converted printer is to close an electrical sensor to indicate that it is present (the printer won't print without this piece installed). Note that the opening where the toner would normally come out is sealed with white tape.

The component at the upper right is the imaging drum (which is rightside up in this photo). As designed, the toner falls out of the cartridge and into that long narrow trough (which in this photo is filled with white powder, but would normally get filled with C, M, Y, or K powder from the reservoir). From that long narrow trough, the powder falls down onto the imaging drum where it is transferred to the paper and later fused. Since the toner container is sealed with tape, no color toner can get down and into the trough. Instead, the operator pours the fine white powder into that long narrow trough by hand, puts the sealed toner container back on top of the imaging drum, and installs the whole thing into one of the "white" slots in the printer (i.e., any slot except for black, the way I am set up).

So the OKI design offers a real advantage if you want to print white. You can get clean, remanufactured imaging drums that have no toner inside them, and fill up the trough with the powder. The process of refilling takes about 5 minutes and can be repeated hundreds of times. Easy access, no drilling holes into the cartridge, etc. The taped toner container on top seals the whole thing shut. The way I am set up is with one black printing cartridge in the K slot and three white cartridges in the C, M, and Y slots. Whenever I run out of black, I can just get a new black toner and replace the old one. If I ever run out of white I can just remove the toner container from the imaging drum and pour more white into the trough, then seal the whole thing back up again. Simple and easy.

Charles Hostetler

Goshen, Ind.

↧

Background for PR 2014 - Addendum

November 22, 2013, 9:10 am

≫ Next: More Background for PR2014

≪ Previous: Background for Prototype Rails 2014

John Barry writes

"Charles,

Thank you file pioneering this technique. I had also spent some thought on the problem but had not gotten this far. I had planned to replace the black curmudgeon an inner with white. Would adapting your set up as a CMYW work for printing multi color?

John Barry"

Thanks for the note John,

I gave some thought to approaches to multi-color decals before I started this project. As you suggest, one might consider replacing the black (K) cartridge with white, creating in effect a CMYW process. I thought there would be two drawbacks to this approach and my experience with the OKI setup has confirmed my original impressions.

The first drawback is coverage. The white toner does not cover as densely and opaquely as the color toners. The problem is enhanced because the white print on the decal will overlie a dark color freight car body. It's just the nature of the beast. I've found that you need at least two of the cartridges contributing white to make an opaque white decal and three is better. Four is a bit of overkill.

The second drawback is the need for a good process black. In theory, if you apply full C, M, and Y together you should get black, and there's no need for a fourth process tone. However, many years ago it was recognized through extensive experience and testing that it was really hard to get a good, rich-looking black that was pleasing to the eye by simply applying C, M, and Y. So a fourth process tone, K, was added to address this issue. Without K, you can't really get a lot of the darker colors to look right and the gamut (printable color palette) of the printer is substantially smaller. That's why the color laser printers use 4 cartridges, and if you want to be able to print a good black you need black toner.

What would be pretty good would be a CMYKW (five cartridge) process for printing white and multi-color decals IF a dense white toner could be developed. With the white toner currently available, you would need a CMYKWW (six cartridge) process to print multi-color and white decals in a single pass. Of course, five and six cartridge printers are not readily available; I freely admit I don't have the time or the skills or the interest to try and kitbash one ;)

This ART shield combines blue, red, black, and white. So how does one go about printing a multicolor and white decal?

I'm going to sketch two approaches here that I can implement with my setup and report more fully after some detailed testing.

Approach 1 - multipass printing. First, print a white background on the decal film, using the OKI KWWW printer. The white area should fully encompass the areas where white will show on the completed decal to avoid registration issues. Second, put the same sheet of decal paper through the regular CMYK color printer. Print the black, red, and blue on top of the white background. Areas outside the shield will be clear; areas that have color will be printed on top of white, and areas with no color will have white show through. I have been assured (strongly I might add!) that this method will work and that the laser printer feed mechanisms are good enough to achieve practical multi-pass alignment. I haven't tried it yet, and remain a bit skeptical that you can get good results.
Approach 2 - the two decal approach. First, print the white background on decal film, using the OKI KWWW printer. Again, the white area should fully encompass the areas where white will show through on the completed decal to avoid registration issues. Second, print a separate decal on the regular CMYK color printer. Just leave the areas where white is to show through blank. Third, apply the first decal on the model, snug it in and let it set. Fourth, apply the second decal on top of the first, snug it in, and let it set. If the decal film is good I think this method should work. We used the two decal approach to make the multi-color Hormel emblem for the NADX Shake N' Take reefers a couple of years ago and it worked fine. Can't see any reason why it won't work with white. This also gives a little more control over the process.

Charles Hostetler

Goshen, Ind.

↧

More Background for PR2014

November 23, 2013, 2:12 pm

≫ Next: Commodity Flows of Portland Cement

≪ Previous: Background for PR 2014 - Addendum

This post contains background information for my Prototype Rails presentation in January 2004. It deals with calibration of the white laser printer. The purposes of calibration are to find color values for the decals that:

result in a dense coverage of toner on the decal film so that the underlying freight car color doesn't show through
has the desired shade of gray to match the prototype lettering, with due consideration of any weathering to be applied
has a fairly even flow of toner out of the three white cartridges (so that you don't constantly have to be replacing the toner in a high output cartridge)
all other things being equal, minimizes the total toner flow from the white cartridges because this is the more expensive stuff.

In several earlier posts I've described how I took an OKI color printer with CMYK cartridges and modified it to a KWWW printer for printing white/gray/black on decal film. Those were the hardware aspects of this decal printing project. In this post I want to discuss the calibration process, particularly why calibration is necessary and how I went about developing and implementing my approach to calibration.

As I remarked earlier, there are four cartridges in a typical color laser printer (cyan, magenta, yellow, and black). The printer works by allowing a small amount of powdered toner to come out of each of the four cartridges, where it is transferred onto the paper and fused in place. The small amounts of each powder are selected by software inside the printer to produce the desired color spot. So the printer has a computer and software embedded inside of it, and that computer software is predicated on the expectation that the 4 cartridges are C, M, Y, and K. The computer software inside the printer doesn't know that the user has physically replaced the C, M, and Y cartridges with white and that the user is expecting to see a shade of gray.

Further complicating things, the laser printer is an RGB machine. Regardless of the colorspace of the artwork (i.e., whether the user used RGB or CMYK or HSB or Lab to specify colors for Photoshop or Illustrator or Corel Draw or whatever program), once the Print... command invoked, the software, the system color matching software, and the printer driver combine to produce a string of RGB values to send to the printer. The printer software has a set of functions inside of it that are designed to take a certain RGB value as input and figure out the right valve settings for the CMYK cartridges to produce the correct color corresponding to that RGB value. And since each manufacturer's toner is a bit different, this set of functions is buried inside the printer and is considered proprietary, and there's no way for a user to get at it and modify it for the KWWW process.

An overview of the 3 step printing process:

The user prepares the artwork in some computer program of choice (e.g., Photoshop or Illustrator) in some color space that is convenient for the user (e.g., CMYK or HSB or RGB or Lab)
When Print... is invoked, the software, including the system color matching software and the printer driver take each pixel in the artwork and create an RGB value for that pixel which is sent to the printer.
The printer takes the RGB value and figures out "valve settings" for the CMYK cartridges which lets the precise amount of powder out of each cartridge to reproduce the color of the pixel.

So with my modified KWWW printer, I needed to find out what RGB values in the artwork turn into the desired shades of gray with acceptable coverage density on the printed page. Because the details of steps 2 and 3 of the printing process were hidden to me, I had no easy theoretical way to approach this, so I developed a brute force calibration process. Inside Photoshop, I made a document in RGB space that has 4096 colored dots, each with a different RGB value. There are 8 pages, each page has 2 arrays of dots, and each array has 16 rows and 16 columns of dots. Then I printed each of the 8 pages onto red sheets of paper using the KWWW printer. Here's a low-resolution scan of page 1 (you can click to enlarge):

The reason I printed this on red paper is that it is a good background on which to evaluate coverage density as well as the color. Here's a higher resolution scan of the lower block of page 1 that illustrates some of the variability in the effects that can be produced:

So the user searches through the 8 pages and finds the coverage density and shade of white/gray desired, and then the page, block (upper or lower), and row and column of the desired dot easily translates into an RGB value (or values) that are used for the artwork.

Richard Brennan is a TT-scale modeler who has been following these decal posts, and he was kind enough to help me with a beta test. We exchanged a few eMails as part of the color selection/calibration process, and he prepared the artwork to letter a variety of freight cars he is interested in for which TT-scale decals are not available. He created a pdf of his artwork and eMailed it to me, and I printed out the pdf on the KWWW printer. In this little test project Richard acted as the content creator and I acted as the print service bureau:

This is a photo of his proof-page (red paper, black boxes separating different freight cars, and white/gray lettering at top) and the final 8 1/2" by 11" printed decal sheet (at bottom). You can barely see the white lettering in this photo, but I looked at the proof sheet and the decal sheet under good light with the Optivisor and I think he chose RGB values that resulted in pretty good coverage and his shades of white/gray look pretty compelling to me. The proof of the pudding will be when they are applied to actual models...

I sent him the printed sheets yesterday and they should arrive at his place on Tuesday. In return, Richard has agreed to evaluate these decals from the point of view of an end-user and report on his findings, which will be posted here when they become available.

Thanks Richard!

Charles Hostetler

Goshen, Ind.

↧

Commodity Flows of Portland Cement

December 2, 2013, 2:21 pm

≫ Next: Cement Flows Part 2: The Wisconsin Scene

≪ Previous: More Background for PR2014

I was was prompted by some correspondence with Brad Andonian to look into the commodity flows of portland cement in the 1950s. Brad has graciously agreed to collaborate on this post by providing some materials specific to the shipment of portland cement from the Lehigh River Vally to the New York metropolitan area and reviewing several drafts.

The Commodity Class:

ICC Commodity Class 633 was Cement: Natural and Portland. The commodities in this class were hydraulic cement, masonry cement, mortar cement, natural cement, and portland cement. These commodities are distinguished from the commodities in ICC Class 635 (Cement, Not Otherwise Specified) which had more of an adhesive or sealant character.

The Production Process:

The main ingredients in portland cement are limestone (and/or dolomite, which are calcium carbonates), clays (aluminosilicates), and gypsum (calcium sulfates). Furnace ashes and slags, sands, crushed rock, and iron ores are sometimes used as additives to control the setting and strength properties of the finished product (http://www.cement.org/basics/howmade.asp). The process involves mixing the ingredients, thermal treatment, and crushing the product to a fine powder.

The raw materials are mixed and heated in large cylindrical kilns (e.g., http://content.mpl.org/cdm/search/collection/MilwWaterwa/searchterm/Cement%20kilns%20--%20Wisconsin%20--%20Milwaukee/mode/exact). The kilns are rotated about the long axis, which is mostly horizontal but tilted so that the material flows gradually down through the rotating kiln. The carbonates and the sulfates are driven off by intense heat near the bottom of the kiln, leaving a calcium aluminosilicate mixture that is crushed into a fine powder. The powdered portland cement was then stored in tall vertical cylindrical silos, and the final product was then bagged or shipped in bulk as needed.

The calcium carbonates are the majority of the ingredient by weight, so cement production facilities were usually located near deposits of limestone that are reasonably available and consistent in quality. The limestone was typically quarried and crushed near the plant itself. The cement production facilities also required a large amount of fuel for the kilns. In the 1950s this was typically coal, but sometimes fuel oil or natural gas. Other inputs to the plants (that may have been shipped by rail) include furnace ashes and slags, gypsum, and crushed rock and sand.

National Characteristics of the Commodity Flow:

The figure below shows the carloads of portland cement shipped by rail in the 1% sample for the 1950s (click to enlarge):

I've added a linear trend line to the graph. The annual carloads were around 6000 at the beginning of the decade with about a 10% decline toward the end of the decade. This is a moderately intense commodity flow, accounting for about 1 out of every 50 carloads on a national basis.

It turns out that with very minor exceptions, the portland cement traffic travelled in box cars or in special cars. In 1950 the majority of the traffic was in box cars, but by the end of the decade the situation was reversed and special cars were carrying the majority of the traffic:

The chart below shows the distribution of mileage traveled by shipments of portland cement in the 1957 1% sample. The traffic was predominately local. The average short-line haul for both box cars and special cars was a little more than 150 miles. Regional-scale hauls (e.g., 500 to 1000 miles) accounted for less than 10% of the traffic.

This chart shows the weight distribution in the 1957 1% sample. Although box cars and special cars were traveling about the same distance, special cars were transporting an increasing quantity by weight during the 1950s. 97% of the special car loads were between 50 and 75 tons. The box car weight distribution was much broader, approximately linearly distributed between 25 and 60 tons. Overall the national average load of portland cement weighted 52 tons in 1957.

State to State Characteristics of the Commodity Flow:

The data table at the end of this post shows the number of shipments of portland cement in the 1% sample as a function of originating state. Pennsylvania was the leading rail shipper of portland cement in 1957 by a factor of about 3 over its nearest competitor (New York). A little more than a fifth of the national cement traffic originated in Pennsylvania.

As noted above, the majority of the rail traffic in cement was local, with an average distance travelled of about 150 miles. So the majority of the cement traffic originating in a particular state ended up at consignees in that same state or adjacent states. However, in addition to being the largest shipper, Pennsylvania was also a bit of an anomaly in that consignees for Pennsylvania cement were located in most of the states east of the Mississippi River. This map shows the destinations of carloads of cement originating in Pennsylvania in 1957:

The dominant flow of Pennsylvania cement shipments were to the east; particularly to New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut.

Commodity Flow Through the Port of Milwaukee:

In the "Port of Milwaukee", Schenker (1967) discusses the domestic (interlake) traffic through the Port of Milwaukee in 1963. His Table 4-3 shows during that year the Port:

received 388,962 tons (about 7,480 carload equivalents) of portland cement by lake vessel
received 64,305 tons (about 1,237 carloads) of portland cement via car ferry
shipped 179 tons (about 3 carloads) of portland cement via car ferry.

Some of the almost 390,000 tons of cement received in bulk by lake vessel were subsequently shipped via rail from several facilities in Milwaukee, both as bulk shipments and as rebagged product. In general, Milwaukee was a net importer by boat and rail of cement as well as a redistribution center.

Commodity Flow from Lehigh River Valley to New York Metropolitan Area:

For the remainder of this post we're going to focus on the portland cement traffic originating in the Pennsylvania cement district (the Lehigh River Valley and the county of Northampton). According to "Historical Statistics of Pennsylvania's Mineral Industries 1961-1965" (J.J. Schantz, 1967) eastern Pennsylvania produced 75% of the state's production. Of the total eastern Pennsylvania production:

33% was consumed in eastern Pennsylvania
29% was consumed in New Jersey
15% was consumed in New York
6% was consumed in Connecticut
6% was consumed in Maryland
the remaining 11% was consumed in 39 other states, D.C., and export.

The distribution of consumption by type of business was:

57% to ready-mix concrete dealers
23% to concrete product manufacturers
12% to building material dealers
7% to highway contractors
1% to other/miscellaneous.

A Typical Lehigh River Valley Shipper:

The Lone Star Cement Co. in Nazareth (Northampton County) Pennsylvania was a typical production facility and rail shipper. Located on the southwest side of the city, it was jointly served by the Delaware, Lackawanna & Western RR and the Lehigh & New England RR. This high-resolution scan is from an aerial photograph taken April 10, 1955:

I've shaded the different functional areas of the facility:

green - the limestone quarry and crushing
red - raw material and coal fuel storage, mixing, kilning, and milling
blue - product storage and shipping

Note the banks of tall vertical silos for storage of the finished product. The rail cars visible in this photo include shorter light-colored LO covered hoppers and longer, darker cars which are a mixture of XMs and LG container-equipped gondolas. The shipping yard is jointly served by the DL&W and the L&NE.

In addition to the DL&W and the L&NE, cement shippers in the Lehigh River Valley were served by the Lehigh Valley, the Northampton & Bath, the Pennsylvania RR, the Lehigh & Hudson River, the Central of New Jersey, and the Reading.

Some New York Metropolitan Area Consignees:

Its a little surprising when you look at the addresses of the major cement dealers in the metropolitan New York area in 1957. Some of the more recognizable dealers were:

Penn-Dixie Cement Corp. - 60 East 42 St., NYC
Lehigh Portland Cement Corp. - 51 East 42 St., NYC
Lone Star Cement Corp. - 100 Park Ave., NYC

These dealers are all located in office buildings located far from rail facilities. It took me a while to realize the way the rail distribution network worked in New York City, but the wholesale and distribution functions of a lot of big businesses were so large that the office facilities were located separately from the actual material delivery areas. If you were a contractor and you needed a large delivery at a job site, you might call Lone Star Cement Corp. and order 50 tons of portland cement. It would most likely be consigned to an agent of the company at a convenient pier, and you would either go pick it up or have a trucking firm deliver it to your site. I think this delivery of a large variety of commodities to a small number of common pier and freight yard facilities is a really interesting feature of the western Manhattan rail scene. It is also a really good reminder of the extremely large volume of wholesale and distribution business that was done in the metropolitan New York area.

Aside from the piers and freight yards along the rivers, it is possible to find interesting examples of rail-served facilities in the New York area. This facility is the Econo-Safety Devices Inc. manufacturing building in Queens. They were a manufacturer of concrete stairways, were served by the Long Island RR, and would make a suitable consignee for cement traffic:

The Cars:

As discussed above, bagged portland cement was shipped in ordinary, general service XM box cars as well as in special cars. The special cars were of two types. Covered hoppers (AAR Designation LO) in cement service were typically around 1900 to 2000 cubic feet capacity and could carry 70 tons of cement. Cars were owned by the railroads and by private car owners. The railroads serving the Lehigh River Valley rostered over a tenth of the LO type cars in the national fleet (60883 cars) as listed in the January 1958 ORER (see second table in data appendix for ORER items). Some of the LO covered hoppers in the national fleet have been covered in detail in:

RP CYC Volume 3; Greenville Steel Car Co. GV-2 2-bay covered hoppers
RP CYC Volume 15; Greenville Steel Car Co. 70-ton fish-belly side sill covered hoppers
RP CYC Volume 27; AC&F 1958 cu ft. 70-ton covered hoppers

The other special cars that carried cement were the container gondolas (AAR Mechanical Designation LG). There were 2114 LG cars on the national roster in Jan. 1958 although not all were in cement service. 1143 LG cars were rostered by the Lehigh River Valley carriers (and the NYC which rostered a number of cement LGs). The items from the Jan. 1958 ORER tagged as LG cars is shown in the third table in the data appendix.

Rich Yoder Models produced O-scale NYC container gons in NYC 501210 to 501241; this web site includes a prototype photo of one of the LG cars (http://www.richyodermodels.com/rym_fc_nyc_cont_gon.htm). These photos shows Brad's LV version from several different angles on his workbench:

Some additional discussion of the container gons and some additional discussion is also available online at:
http://forum.atlasrr.com/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=55643&whichpage=2
http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/ny-2.jpg
and
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/156787.aspx.

The box cars were useful for carrying bagged cement to retail building material dealers. The relatively high-capacity LOs were useful for delivering large amounts of cement to fixed facilities. The LG container gons were useful for delivering multiple smaller loads to individual job sites.

Charles Hostetler and Brad Andonian

Data Appendix:

Carloads Shipped by State, 1957 1% Sample

From	Carloads
Pennsylvania	1143
New York	426
Texas	375
Alabama	357
Iowa	305
California	255
Illinois	242
Kansas	237
Tennessee	224
Missouri	199
Florida	197
Indiana	178
Virginia	169
Ohio	117
Oklahoma	104
West Virginia	104
Nebraska	101
Maryland	87
Louisiana	82
Minnesota	67
Colorado	56
Michigan	40
Wisconsin	38
Washington	37
Utah	27
Oregon	9
Arizona	omitted
Arkansas	omitted
Georgia	omitted
Idaho	omitted
Kentucky	omitted
Maine	omitted
Mississippi	omitted
Montana	omitted
South Carolina	omitted
South Dakota	omitted
Wyoming	omitted

Jan. 1958 ORER Items, Railroad Owned, Type LO, Lehigh River Valley Carriers, Sorted in decreasing numerical order:

Page	Item	Marking	MD	Total	#Start	#End	CuFt	Capy (lbs)
88	25	PRR	LO	1297	254252	255575	1973	140,000
163	14	LNE	LO	565	12101	12665	1790	140,000
88	34	PRR	LO	400	257301	257700	2003	140,000
88	23	PRR	LO	300	253500	253799	3050	140,000
88	31	PRR	LO	300	256050	256349	2003	140,000
88	33	PRR	LO	300	257001	257300	2003	140,000
164	25	DL&W	LO	299	19000	19299	1790	140,000
164	27	DL&W	LO	273	19449	19724	1790	140,000
148	6	CNJ	LO	250	501	750	1986	140,000
88	26	PRR	LO	250	255576	255825	1973	140,000
145	16	RDG	LO	250	79650	79899	2006	140,000
163	22	LNE	LO	200	18001	18200	2003	140,000
163	23	LNE	LO	200	18201	18400	2006	140,000
171	35	LV	LO	200	50700	50899	2003	140,000
88	27	PRR	LO	200	255850	256049	1958	140,000
171	31	LV	LO	150	50250	50399	1790	140,000
163	16	LNE	LO	101	12701	12801	1892	140,000
148	7	CNJ	LO	100	751	850	2003	140,000
164	23	DL&W	LO	100	18500	18599	1790	140,000
164	24	DL&W	LO	100	18600	18699	1790	140,000
171	27	LV	LO	100	50150	50249	1790	140,000
171	32	LV	LO	100	50400	50499	1799	140,000
171	34	LV	LO	100	50600	50699	1790	140,000
145	13	RDG	LO	100	79350	79449	1800	140,000
145	15	RDG	LO	100	79550	79649	1860	140,000
145	12	RDG	LO	99	79250	79349	1800	140,000
145	14	RDG	LO	99	79450	79549	1800	140,000
171	33	LV	LO	90	50500	50589	1799	140,000
148	42	CNJ	LO	79	65010	65090	1280	110,000
145	4	RDG	LO	79	79000	79083	1620	110,000
88	22	PRR	LO	76	253248	253497	1564	100,000
148	11	CNJ	LO	50	900	949	2006	140,000
171	26	LV	LO	50	50100	50149	1933	140,000
145	6	RDG	LO	50	79084	79133	1600	110,000
145	11	RDG	LO	50	79200	79249	1800	140,000
148	34	CNJ	LO	47	59100	59149	1680	140,000
163	15	LNE	LO	35	12666	12700	1790	140,000
145	8	RDG	LO	35	79135	79169	1826	110,000
77	3	NB	LO	25	3626	3650	1790	140,000
77	4	NB	LO	25	3651	3675	1958	140,000
198	3	LHR	LO	20	1900	1919	990	140,000
198	4	LHR	LO	20	2000	2019	1126	140,000
164	26	DL&W	LO	19	19400	19448	1860	140,000
148	1	CNJ	LO	8	1	8	1030	140,000
145	5	RDG	LO	4	79000	79083	1714	110,000
148	41	CNJ	LO	2	65002	65008	1350	110,000
164	31	DL&W	LO	1	19800	19800	2221	100,000
88	24	PRR	LO	1	254250	254250	1918	140,000
145	7	RDG	LO	1	79134	79134	2028	110,000

		Total		7300

Jan. 1958 ORER Items, Railroad Owned, Type LG, Lehigh River Valley Carriers (And NYC), Sorted in decreasing numerical order:

Page	Item	Marking	MD	Total	#Start	#End	CuFt (Gal)	Capy (lbs)
89	15	PRR	LG	256	353000	353277	1288	200,000
89	16	PRR	LG	114	353278	353391	1288	199,000
116	15	NYC	LG	100	501800	501899	-	140,000
116	13	NYC	LG	98	501640	501739	-	140,000
171	7	LV	LG	59	27200	27299	1425	100,000
164	32	DL&W	LG	56	19900	19955	-	140,000
116	4	NYC	LG	55	501000	501206	-	140,000
89	17	PRR	LG	54	353392	353491	1288	200,000
89	31	PRR	LG	37	360501	362383	1288	140,000
116	21	NYC	LG	36	502225	502283	-	110,000
116	16	NYC	LG	33	501900	501935	-	140,000
116	5	NYC	LG	32	501210	501241	-	140,000
116	6	NYC	LG	31	501300	501499	-	140,000
171	8	LV	LG	23	27200	27298	1900	140,000
116	22	NYC	LG	21	502284	502339	-	140,000
89	13	PRR	LG	19	352000	352830	1288	140,000
171	9	LV	LG	17	27200	27298	1900	140,000
90	3	PRR	LG	16	382002	383091	1288	140,000
88	56	PRR	LG	15	315101	315864	1288	140,000
164	35	DL&W	LG	13	19977	19989	-	140,000
164	33	DL&W	LG	11	19956	19966	-	140,000
164	34	DL&W	LG	10	19967	19976	-	140,000
116	14	NYC	LG	6	501740	501745	-	140,000
92	71	PRR	LG	6	750531	750912	1288	140,000
92	81	PRR	LG	6	775199	775473	1288	140,000
116	11	NYC	LG	5	501500	501639	-	140,000
93	22	PRR	LG	5	840005	840158	1288	140,000
93	4	PRR	LG	3	801001	801345	1288	140,000
116	17	NYC	LG	2	501913	501915	-	140,000
93	7	PRR	LG	2	810282	810458	1288	140,000
93	16	PRR	LG	1	825067	825170	1288	140,000
93	35	PRR	LG	1	864004	864052	1288	140,000

		Total		1143

↧

Cement Flows Part 2: The Wisconsin Scene

December 6, 2013, 6:10 pm

≫ Next: Wisconsin Cement Flows (Continued)

≪ Previous: Commodity Flows of Portland Cement

In an earlier post (http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/12/commodity-flows-of-portland-cement.html) Brad Andonian and I looked at the commodity flow of portland cement with a focus on the eastern U.S., particularly Pennsylvania and the New York metropolitan area. We found (nationally) that the portland cement commodity flow was strong throughout the 1950s, that both special cars and ordinary general service box cars were involved, and that there was a strong regional character to the individual commodity flows. After reading this post, Andy Laurent suggested taking a look at the commodity flows of portland cement around Wisconsin. These commodity flows are important to both of our layout settings as well as intrinsically interesting [in my view ;) ], so that's what Andy and I are going to do in this post.

The Relevant Data:

The data from the 1% carload waybill survey during the 1950s (1950 through 1960 inclusive) show that Wisconsin was a net importer of portland cement. Extrapolating from the 1% sample, each year, roughly 10,000 carloads of cement entered Wisconsin, roughly 1,000 carloads of cement left Wisconsin for other states, and roughly 1,500 carloads was distributed within the state (Wisconsin - Wisconsin). The weight, distance, and revenue data for these Wisconsin shipments were not significantly different national averages.

Interestingly, the data do show a temporal (secular) variation. The period from 1950 through 1955 is strongly different that the period from 1956 through 1960. This table shows the average carloads entering Wisconsin from other states during the two time periods:

To Wisc.	Carloads/Yr
From:	<50-55>	<56-60>
Georgia	0	20
Illinois	7083	3940
Indiana	683	40
Iowa	1783	2560
Kansas	50	120
Michigan	217	1160
Minnesota	783	780
Missouri	100	40
Ohio	0	20
Oklahoma	0	20
Pennsylvania	83	360
total	10783	9060

Note the decrease in the Illinois to Wisconsin traffic and the increase in the Iowa and Michigan flows to Wisconsin. The sampling error in these averages is on the order of a few tens of carloads per year. The following table shows the same information for the average number of carloads leaving Wisconsin for other states:

From Wisc.	Carloads/Yr
To:	<50-55>	<56-60>
Illinois	0	80
Michigan	183	420
Minnesota	800	740
Nebraska	0	20
North Dakota	200	420
total	1183	1680

And finally, for traffic both originating and terminating in Wisconsin:

Internal Distribution

450

2520

In the previous post I remarked that Schenker's data for the Port of Milwaukee in 1963 showed the rough equivalent of 7,500 carloads received through the Port via bulk freighter; 1,200 carloads received via car ferry from Michigan (and other points eastward); and 3 carloads shipped via car ferry to Michigan (and possibly other points eastward). These numbers are roughly consistent with the average of the 1% survey from the second half of the 1950s (if you accept the thought that a lot of the inbound bulk freighter traffic was moved out of the ports via truck rather than rail) except for the Wisconsin to Michigan flow. The 1% survey says maybe 420 carloads per year and Schenker's data says maybe 3 carloads via car ferry from Milwaukee. Is the "missing" rail traffic from Wisconsin to Michigan from the Manitowoc or Kewaunee ferries? Sent south through Chicago and around Lake Michigan? More likely, its the result of redistribution (transshipment) and that's an interesting part of the story that I think is directly relevant to Andy's setting (Green Bay). We'll revisit this topic a bit later in this post.

A Brief Tour of Selected Facilities:

In this part of the post, we look at some of the larger cement-related facilities near Lake Michigan and Lake Superior, working from Racine north to Superior (and as an added bonus, one in Duluth). Descriptive information is at the bottom of each aerial photo. The facility names are all taken from City Directories dating from 1957 through 1959. You can click on each photo to enlarge or download.

Facility Name: Consumers Co.
Location: 3 Mile Road, just north of Racine, a couple of miles inland from Lake Michigan
Date of Photo: April 9, 1955
Description: CNW's Chicago to Milwaukee double track main to west of photo (Old Line Subdivision). This is a ready-mix concrete plant. Note that this is NOT a cement manufacturing facility; it turns out there is no source of cement-quality limestone or dolomite nearby and clearly there are no kilns for cement production. Instead, aggregate is mined from the open pit and combined with cement brought in by rail (note cement silos on rail siding highlighted in blue and the two dark-colored LOs on the rail siding south of the silos). Mixed wet concrete leaves via truck. Mined aggregate also leaves via rail (note long string of hoppers on siding leading to aggregate loader.
Example Commodity Flows: Consignee for portland cement shipped from Milwaukee port terminals, originating line-haul carrier MILW, via CNW (Old Line, interchange at Jones Island or National Yard); consignee for portland cement shipped from various northern Illinois cement plants, originating line haul carrier probably CNW if shipment originated within Chicago switching district. Shipper for rock and sand to various nearby locations.

Facility Name:  Huron Portland Cement Co. (bottom) and Manitowoc Portland Cement Co. (top)
Location:  Port of Milwaukee, Burnham Canal
Date of Photo:  April 8, 1955
Description:  Cargill's Elevator E on the Milwaukee Road is to north (right) of photo. These are both marine transshipment facilities. Cement is unloaded from lake boats and stored in the tall, cylindrical silos. The cement is loaded from the silos into rail cars and trucks as needed.
Example Commodity Flows:  Shipper for portland cement, originating line-haul carrier MILW.

Facility Name:  Penn-Dixie Cement Corp.
Location:  Port of Milwaukee, Burnham Canal
Date of Photo:  April 8, 1955
Description:  This facility is across (south) of the Burnham Canal from the facilities shown above. This is another marine transshipment facility, with an adjacent warehouse for bagging cement. The facility is served by the Milwaukee Road and truck.
Example Commodity Flows:  Shipper for portland cement, originating line-haul carrier MILW.

Facility Name:  Universal Atlas Cement Co.
Location:  Port of Milwaukee, North Menominee Canal
Date of Photo:  April 8, 1955
Description:  This facility is several blocks north of the Burnham Canal. This is another marine transshipment facility, with an adjacent warehouse for bagging cement. The facility is served by the Milwaukee Road and truck.
Example Commodity Flows:  Shipper for portland cement, originating line-haul carrier MILW.

Facility Name:  Kolinski Concrete Co.
Location:  Port of Milwaukee, Kinnikinnic River
Date of Photo:  April 8, 1955
Description:  This facility is on the south side of the Kinnikinnic River near the Kinnikinnic Ave. bridge. It is just across the river from the Maple Street Ferry Dock. Note the lake boat - it is a little bit to long for any of the 1955-era cement carriers, so it was probably unloading aggregate. Both cement and aggregate are unloaded here and ready-mix cement is the primary product shipped. The Milwaukee Road's lead into the Jones Island switching area is on an elevated trestle on the left hand side of the photo. The railcar unloading facility is a dump pit that leads to a conveyor into the aggregate piles. This siding and dump pit is just to the right of the elevated trestle and connects with that track off the bottom of the photo.
Example Commodity Flows:  Consignee for sand and rock, originating line-haul carrier would be any carrier in the area.

I visited this area in 2012 and took these two photos from the bridge. The first is of the St. Marys Conquest; a post steam era cement carrier, and the second is of the facility itself:

Her sister ship, the St. Mary's Challenger made her last run in October and is being sent to Sturgeon Bay for conversion to an integrated barge/tug. Perhaps the last freight steamer on the lakes with reciprocating engines (and featured on this year's Chicago South Shore & South Bend Railroad's Christmas card!).

Facility Name:  Northern Milwaukee Lime and Cement Co.
Location: Milwaukee, Silver Spring Road
Date of Photo:  April 12, 1954
Description:  This is a small facility on the north side of Milwaukee. The Milwaukee Road's station North Milwaukee is just to the north, where the Beer Line diverges to the east from the main. Cement was probably trucked to this location from one of the Port of Milwaukee facilities discussed above. That circular feature is not a pit mine - its an aggregate unloading area for rail cars (note the eight open-top hoppers on the loading siding). Most of the ready-mix concrete is probably shipped by truck.
Example Commodity Flows:  Consignee for aggregate, originating line-haul carrier would be any local carrier.

To be continued next post…

↧

Wisconsin Cement Flows (Continued)

December 9, 2013, 12:05 pm

≫ Next: A Prototype Waybill - 34

≪ Previous: Cement Flows Part 2: The Wisconsin Scene

This post continues the previous post on the commodity flows of portland cement in Wisconsin in the 1950s. In the previous post we looked at several facilities in Racine and Milwaukee. We'll pick up with a tour of selected facilities near the lakefront, starting in Manitowoc and working northwest. Captions are at the bottom of each photo, and facility names are from City Directories dating from 1957 through 1959.

Facility Name: Manitowoc Portland Cement Co.

Location: Manitowoc River, northwest of downtown Manitowoc

Date of Photo: May 8, 1951

Description: The area shaded in blue is the Manitowoc Portland Cement Co. This facility actually produced cement on site; it is not a storage and transshipment facility. The kilns are in the long horizontal building indicated by the blue arrow. Note the large piles of coal, probably mostly delivered by lake boat; also the large piles of limestone/dolomite just to the north of the coal piles and the bridge crane for unloading lake boats. Limestone and coal were shipped into the facility by lake boat, and the cement was produced on site, stored in the vertical silos just above the coal pile, and subsequently shipped by rail and truck. The facility was served by the SOO and the CNW - the CNW yard serving industries in the area is in the north (top) of the blue shaded area.

I couldn't resist including Manitowoc Shipbuilding Inc. in this crop. It is on the peninsula just to the right (east) of Manitowoc Portland Cement Co. Over 400 hulls were erected at this facility over the years, including the City of Midland, several other cross-lake car ferries, a number of bulk carriers, and several cement carriers. Two Ann Arbor/Grand Trunk ferries are shaded in green; the one to the left is in the floating dry dock. The boat highlighted in yellow is the John G. Munson, a 650-foot self-unloader that was commissioned in August of 1952. The keel was laid on March 7, so in this view just part of the hull, the bow, and stern have been erected.

Example Commodity Flows: This facility was probably an infrequent consignee for car loads of coal and limestone; more frequently a consignee for gypsum and coal ash (ingredients in portland cement), and most often a shipper of portland cement. I haven't been able to find any evidence that there was a bagging area associated with the facility, so I think most of the cement was shipped in bulk by truck and rail (in covered hoppers).

Facility Name: Universal Atlas Cement Co. and Western Lime and Cement Co.

Location: west side of Fox River, Green Bay

Date of Photo: April 17, 1971

Description: The area shaded in blue is the Universal Atlas Cement Co. This facility was a storage and transshipment facility. Note the riverfront structures for accepting deliveries from the cement carriers and the large vertical silos. Its hard to tell from the aerial photo and the Sanborn maps, but there is either a very small bag house or none at all. The facility shaded in yellow is Western Lime & Cement Co., with 5 horizontal kilns. This is a lime and cement manufacturing plant. Limestone/dolomite and coal were delivered by lake boat at the riverfront, and the lime and cement were shipped by truck and rail.

Example Commodity Flows: The Universal Atlas Cement Co. was a rail shipper of portland cement in bulk. The CNW and the GBW were originating line-haul carriers. The Western Lime and Cement Co. might have been an infrequent consignee for car loads of coal and limestone to supplement boat deliveries; was probably a consignee for gypsum and coal ash (ingredients in portland cement), and possibly a shipper of bagged portland cement and lime - it appears that there might have been a loading platform on the west (left) side of the building but it is really hard to tell from the aerials and Sanborn maps.

Facility Name: Huron Portland Cement Co.

Location: west side of Fox River at the foot of 9th Street, Green Bay

Date of Photo: April 17, 1971

Description: The area shaded in blue is the Huron Portland Cement Co. Like the Universal Atlas facility shown above, this was a storage and transshipment facility but with a large bag house. Note the rectangular cluster of vertical silos.

Example Commodity Flows: Huron Portland Cement Co. was a shipper of portland cement, both in bulk and bagged. The facility was served by the Milwaukee Road.

Facility Name: Huron Portland Cement Co.

Location: outer harbor, Superior Wisc.

Date of Photo: May 2, 1952

Description: The area shaded in blue is the Huron Portland Cement Co. in Superior's outer harbor. This was a storage and transshipment facility as well as a manufacturer of ready mix-concrete. Aggregate and portland cement were shipped by lake boat.

Example Commodity Flows: Huron Portland Cement Co. was a shipper of portland cement. The facility was served by the Soo Line.

Facility Name: Universal Atlas Cement Co.

Location: inner harbor, Duluth Minn.

Date of Photo: May 2, 1952

Description: The area shaded in blue is the Universal Atlas Cement Co. Note the four large silos underneath the cross-shaped roof at the bottom end of the pier. This was a storage and transshipment facility.

Example Commodity Flows: This facility was a shipper of portland cement. The facility was served by the CNW. The CMO Freight House is immediately north (above) the facility.

The Cement Carriers:

Cement was undoubtedly carried in some of the ordinary bulk carriers (straight deckers and self unloaders) when necessary. However, because of the greater density, sensitivity to moisture, and limited number of distribution routes, specialized lake boats were developed in the early 1920s for marine shipment of portland cement on the Great Lakes, and by the 1950s the cement carrying fleet was undergoing a second round of expansion and upgrading. These cement carriers were self-unloaders; they needed no overhead cranes or bridges on shore to unload. They only needed to be able to connect their pressurized hoses to pipes that lead to the storage silos. In 1957 there were 9 of these vessels that could be found around Lake Michigan and Lake Superior waterfronts:

Vessel	Length (ft)	Beam (ft)	Ref.
John W. Boardman	349	55	a
BulKarrier	253	43	b
Cement Karrier	253	43	b
S. T. Crapo	393	60	c
E. M. Ford	406	50	d
J. B. John	250	43	e
Daniel McCool	147	33	f
Samuel Mitchell	298	40	g
Paul H. Townsend	429	50	h

The BulKarrier and the Cement Karrier were of Canadian registry, all others were registered by U.S. fleets. Note that these boats are much shorter than the typical straight decker or self unloading bulk freighter (which in the 1950s was around 600 to 700 feet in length). If constructed in HO scale the cement carriers would range from 20 to 59 inches long and about 6 inches wide.

This photo of the S. T. Crapo in Lake Huron illustrates the lines of a loaded cement carrier in the classic 1950's Huron Cement scheme:

The Freight Cars (Particularly the Covered Hoppers):

In an earlier post I showed data from the 1% carload waybill study that indicated on a nationwide basis that a little more than half of the carloads of portland cement shipped in 1957 were in freight cars of type L (special). Except on the east coast (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York), where a small and interesting fleet of container gondolas operated (LG) the freight traffic in portland cement was divided between ordinary general service box cars and covered hoppers cars (LOs). I've written a lot about the problem of general service freight car distribution, so for the remainder of this post I want to consider the LO fleet and how one might go about selecting covered hoppers to handle portland cement commodity flows in the context of Wisconsin.

In the January 1958 ORER there were 2,271,377 total freight cars listed in 15,785 items by U.S. carriers and private owners. The average number of freight cars per item was about 144. Of the total fleet, 60,883 were classified as type LO, amounting to about 2.7%. These cars were distributed among 633 separate items, with an average of about 96 cars per item.

The typical LO carrying cement was:

owned by a rail carrier rather than a private car owner
in dedicated service, rather than a "free-roller"
returned empty via service route rather than loaded off-line to some other destination
either a Pullman-Standard PS-2 (with frequency about 30%) or an ACF 1958 cu. ft. LO (with frequency about 60%).

Fortunately high quality versions of both of the most frequently used cars are readily available in HO:

Kadee PS-2s

Intermountain ACFs

and there is an abundance of literature on the production, rosters, and paint and lettering available, e.g.:

Hawkins on the PS-2

Hawkins on the ACF 1958 cu ft. LO (first of a six part article, all available on line)

Switzer on weathering and out of the box treatment

So the main problem for the modeler aspiring to replicated the flows of portland cement in bulk is the selection of prototypes. Here's how I reasoned it out for my layout setting, the Jones Island area of Milwaukee. Its important to remember that the Port of Milwaukee had two car ferry slips. The Jones Island Municipal Ferry Terminal (which is on my layout) was switched by the CNW and received cars for the CNW and its connections. Cars for the Milwaukee Road, Soo Line, and their connections were more likely to be associated with the Maple Street ferry slip, which is not on my layout. (The CNW, MILW, GTW, and SOO did use the Jones Island yard as an interchange point). Also, the major portland cement terminals were served by the Milwaukee Road. So to appear on my layout, a load of portland cement in a covered hopper could be:

inbound from the CO and its connections via ferry (from Ludington) for some destination on the CNW
inbound from the GTW via ferry (from Muskegon) and interchanged for some destination on the CNW
outbound from one the Milwaukee area cement terminals (which were served by the Milwaukee Road) and interchanged for some destination on the CNW

This suggests to me that C&O, MILW, and GTW are the LOs that will most frequently pass through the Jones Island area, and these carriers all depended on ACF a bit more than on PS in 1957. So it looks like finding a good source of the Intermountain ACF cars should be on my list of things to do before they disappear, like so many of the other styrene kits have…

In our correspondence about this post Andy brought up two ideas about selecting prototype LO cars. He remarked that he plans to have a "healthy fleet of private marks", which I hadn't considered. It seems quite possible to me that a large company like Penn-Dixie or Huron could have leased some SHPX cars for example, and assigned them to specific operations or facilities. Long-term lessors did not always label the cars for the lessees, and there is something a little different about the operation with the anonymity of a fleet of assigned cars from a private car owner.

The other concept he brought up is the idea of a pool of cars from a variety of different carriers (not just the carrier serving the facility) assigned to an operation. This is analogous to the way that some auto parts pools were organized. In this scheme, a bigger facility, say the Universal Atlas Cement Co. in Milwaukee, which is served by the Milwaukee Road, might have a pool of MILW, SOO, CNW, and GBW cars assigned to dedicated service. The proportion of each carrier's car would be negotiated among the carriers according to the expected traffic distribution, but the cars would all be assigned to the pool and loaded to any destination covered by the pool regardless of road name.

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

A Prototype Waybill - 34

December 12, 2013, 10:13 am

≫ Next: A Prototype Waybill - 35

≪ Previous: Wisconsin Cement Flows (Continued)

Introduction:

This post starts the discussion of the waybills for the August 29, 1962 Ahnapee & Western train. There were 15 cars in this delivery from the Kewaunee, Green Bay & Western via the interchange at Casco Junction. Trains averaged about 15 cars on the A&W in the early 1950s, and probably a bit fewer in 1962; but not during cherry season - the late summer months continued to be well trafficked. August 29 had quite an interesting variety of shipments, including some of the more typical (traffic lane) deliveries as well as some extremely rare shipments. All of the scans are provided by Andy Laurent from the A&W waybill collection. None have been previously published.

The shipment that is the subject of this post was one of the extremely rare shipments. It was a "doublet" that involved two freight cars with two sets of nearly identical waybills. The waybill collection actually contains 7 pieces of paperwork for this two-car shipment.

The first piece of paper is the original waybill that travelled with one of the cars (click to enlarge):

The second is a letter from the consignee to the A&W agent regarding delivery details for that shipment:

The third and fourth are additional waybill forms for the first car, filled out by hand (rather than by typewriter). They were used solely to record the icing charges for the shipment. The A&W agent needed these to send out the freight bills (the shipment was sent collect). Judging from the interchange stamps these waybills must have accompanied the car for at least part of the journey. They might have been mailed from Canada to the agent at Frankfort or Kewaunee and joined the shipment en route.

A similar paperwork trail accompanied the second car in the shipment:

Relationships to Other A&W Waybills:

There are 326 waybills in the spreadsheet that Andy prepared that are shown on the GBW waybill page (http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills.htm) covering the time period June 27, 1962 to August 27, 1962. In addition to selected examples of those waybills, we've subsequently examined about 10 more from the August 28th train. None of the waybills we have examined so far are related to these two.

Format:

The originating line-haul carrier was the Canadian National Railways. There are actually two different forms involved. The original typed waybills are on a CN form labeled "Freight Waybill - Preferred Movement" while the hand-written waybills are on a simple Freight Waybill form. All of these are full-sized 8 1/2 by 11 inch forms with a center-line fold. Note that the headers are centered on the forms, rather than the more typical right-justification. All of the footers are centered as well, which was typical. The earliest forms date from April 1959. Andy reported that the typewritten waybills are definitely on pink stock; the thin paper and white backing he used for the scan washes out the color for a bit, but thees preferred movement waybills followed the common practice of using pink stock to help them stand out from the rest of the stack.

Typefaces, Preprinting, Stamps, and Handwriting:

The two typed waybills were prepared on different typewriters. Both typefaces are san serif, moderately condensed, and have old-style numerals. The typeface on the first waybill has open-top fours and is a bit heavier, while the typeface on the second waybill has closed-top fours and is a bit lighter and taller.

There is no preprinting on any of the waybills.

The typical interchange (rectangular) and yard arrival stamps (circular) are present in profusion. There are also a variety of stamps associated with customs at the Canadian-U.S. border. Both of the typed waybills also have a stamp that was applied by the Ann Arbor at Frankfort, Mich. when the cars were iced. This stamp has spaces for the date of icing and the amounts of ice and salt that were used. There are also CN icing stamps on the back that show through in places. It appears that the bunkers were nearly empty as 6,500 lbs of ice (the full capacity) were noted as added.

On the typed waybills, aside from several miscellaneous notations, there were three instances of handwriting. The first was associated with the change in consignee from Miller Distributing Co. to Fruit Growers Coop. The new consignee was inserted by hand. The second and third instances were completion of the appropriate parts of the weight ticket (by the CN in Toronto) and the icing stamp (by the AA in Frankfort).

The three hand-written waybills must have accompanied the shipment for at least part of the way; judging from the junctions stamps these forms were joined with the shipment at least some time before it arrived in Kewaunee. They appear to have been used to as a supplementary record of the amount and cost of ice and salt used in icing. A reasonable guess is that these CN forms originated when the cars were iced in Montreal and Toronto.

Dates and Waybill Numbers:

The waybill numbers for the typed waybills are consecutive, but the waybill dates are several days apart (August 23 and 25). The waybill numbers for the hand-written waybill supplements are from a quite different series than the waybill numbers for the typed waybills.

It was hard for me to understand the eastern portion of the trip (from Chicoutimi to Mimico Yard in Toronto), but my best reconstruction of the shipment from August 26 forward is:
August 26: Mimico Yard on the CN; Sarnia Tunnel on the CN
August 27: Port Huron Mich. on the GTW
August 28: Durand Mich., where the shipment was interchanged from the GTW to the AA; later iced on the AA in Frankfort
August 29: Kewaunee on the GBW and arrival in Sturgeon Bay.

The Cars:

The cars were CN 210623 and CN 211390. Both were refrigerator cars (RAMH; refrigerator cars with brine tanks, equipped with beef rails, having special heating appliances for the protection of commodities against freezing). From the Jan. 1958 ORER:

CN 210300 to 210899; Steel refrigerator cars, overhead ice tanks; 587 total
IL: 40'
IW: 8' 6"
IH: 6' 8"
EL: 42'
EW: 10' 4"
EH: 15' 8"
Door Openings: 5' by 6' 9"
Capy: 2273 cu. ft.; 105,000 lbs

CN 210900 to 211399; Steel refrigerator cars, overhead ice tanks; 494 total
IL: 40'
IW: 8' 6"
IH: 6' 8"
EL: 42'
EW: 10' 4"
EH: 15' 8"
Door Openings: 5' by 6' 9"
Capy: 2273 cu. ft.; 105,000 lbs

Both types held 6,500 lbs. of crushed ice in overhead bunkers.

These are two of the Canadian 8-hatch overhead brine tank refrigerator cars:
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?o=cn&i=cn210431
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cn210431_2&o=cn (The date supplied for these first two photos is clearly in error; they were taken in the early 1960s, not 1953. The CN wet noodle logo dates from December 1960/early 1961)
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cn211349&o=cn
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cn211284&o=cn
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cn211660&o=cn (This is the P/L scheme I'm interested in for a fall 1957 layout setting)
http://freight.railfan.ca/cgi-bin/image.pl?i=cn209712&o=cn

In HO, the obvious approach to open-the-box and weather modeling is the True Line Trains 8-Hatch reefer:
http://www.truelinetrains.ca/freight-cars/ho---8-hatch-reefer

Also in HO, Funaro and Camerlengo makes a resin kit in several versions:
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/5130.html
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/5131.html
http://www.fandckits.com/HOFreight/5132.html

The Shipper:

The shipper was Saguenay Mercantile Ltd., in Chicoutimi Quebec. Saquenay Mercantile was a produce commission broker that was incorporated in 1949. I haven't been able to find out much about them except that at some time in the 1950s they found a 24-inch snake in their warehouse (see second picture from the top at http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.shistoriquesaguenay.com/PhotoDescr.asp%3FTxtPhoto%3Dchicoutimi%26offset%3D4270&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522saguenay%2Bmercantile%2522%2Bchicoutimi%2Bquebec%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26biw%3D1436%26bih%3D790), and that they were located at 538 rue La Fontaine in Chicoutimi, which was not really close to the CN rails. Quite possible the blueberries were loaded into the reefers at a house track near the depot (http://www.panoramio.com/photo/33445078).

The Consignee:

The consignee was Miller Distributing Co., Inc. They had a cold storage warehouse and shipping facility in Marshfield, Wisc. served by the C&NW, but they must have had some business dealings with the Fruit Growers Coop in Sturgeon Bay because that is where they directed the agent to deliver the car. The Fruit Growers Coop was a canning facility in Sturgeon Bay (on the east side of the bay, south of the bridge; inside the green outline) that was served by the A&W:

The Fruit Growers Coop had received two cars in August just prior to this shipment that were recorded in the A&W collection. On August 1 they received a carload of empty cans and on August 28 they received an empty "DF" car for loading. So this was a pretty busy season for that facility, and I expect to see more activity from this facility as we examine additional trains.

The Route:

The car originated on the CN near the eastern end of the Saguenay branch line in northeastern Quebec. The route was:

CN - PORT HURON TUNNEL - GTW - DURAND - AA - KEWAUNEE - KGB - CASCO JUNCTION - AW - STURGEON BAY.

The car cleared customs in Port Huron, Mich. I calculated the short-line haul as:

CN: 741 miles
GTW: 83 miles
AA: 257 miles (including 60 miles on the ferry)
KGB: 13 miles
AW: 34 miles

Total: 1,128 miles

The Commodity:

The commodity was fresh blueberries. There were in ICC Commodity Class 053: Berries Fresh, Not Frozen. These blueberries were almost certainly destined to be used in a canned fruit product of some kind (not for local consumption). This makes the commodity lane a rare one for most modelers (unless it is overhead traffic). Griffin-Touhey was in the business of making canned fruit cocktail (they were open year-round), so that would be a best guess of their final use. However, the change of consignee to Fruit Growers could have been for warehouse capacity considerations (FG held it for Miller?)...or perhaps Fruit Growers was canning something other than just pie cherries that summer?

Both cars held 1512 boxes, the weight per box was 27 lbs., so the total billed weight was 40824 lbs. The shipping charges were 202 per cwt., so each car cost 824.64 in shipping. By the time ice and salt were added to the bill it came to 984.35 for each car! Note from the actual weight tickets the net weights of the shipment were 51,240 lbs. and 47,700 lbs., so the weight agreement must have had some allowance for the empty boxes.

As measured by the 1% Carload Waybill Sample shipments in ICC commodity Class 053 were extremely rare in the late 1940s and 1950s:

Year	Carloads	<Ton/Car>	<Haul/Car>	<Rev/Car>
1947	6	21	1,051	385
1948	2	31	2,512	1,026
1949	-	-	-	-
1950	1	31	2466	1077
1951	1	9	302	233
1952	-	-	-	-
1953	-	-	-	-
1954	-	-	-	-
1955	-	-	-	-
1956	-	-	-	-
1957	1	5	357	216
1958	-	-	-	-
1959	-	-	-	-
1960	-	-	-	-

Those listed in the table above were domestic shipments, originating largely in Oregon. In the special study of commodities originating in Canada (data from 1951 through 1953) we find Canadian shipments to the U.S. were more common than U.S. shipments to U.S. destinations during that time period. The three-year sample recorded 4 shipments to Illinois, 2 to Minnesota, and 1 to New York.

If we make a VERY rough overestimate of 3 shipments of ICC 053 per year, this suggests that the average frequency of carload berry shipments is about 1 per 100,000 carloads. So if your local layout setting permits, this is an opportunity to feature a vary rare commodity flow with a pretty cool Canadian freight car. If your local industries do not include a fruit cannery, this commodity flow is probably best modeled as a rare example of through (overhead) traffic.

In my layout setting, I use the Port of Milwaukee data as a primary mechanism to model commodity flows. His data tables do not show any domestic interlake traffic in fresh berries (i.e., shipments via car ferry). Five tons of fruits and berries were exported overseas through the Port, mostly through Transit Shed 1 (which is on my layout), and that might have been a single delivery made by rail. For my purposes I put this commodity flow in the little stack of oddities and curiosities that I select with a frequency such that it would appear randomly once in every several hundred operating sessions.

Special Instructions:

I thought it was interesting that the cars were directed to be weighed. They were loaded and billed by Shippers Load and Count, but someone must have wanted the actual weights for some other purpose.

I also thought it was interesting that the cars were directed to be re-iced to capacity at every icing station. The charges for the ice and salt amounted to more than 10% of the total shipping cost. Note that the crushed ice/salt mixture was specified to be 30% salt.

Freight Car Distribution:

Even though carrier-owned, these refrigerator cars were managed on a mileage basis. The considerations of the Code of Car Service Rules and the Code of Per Diem Rules weren't applicable to these shipments. To equalize mileage, these cars most probably returned empty via the service route to the CN.

Other Thoughts:

I continue to be impressed with some of the large freight charges associated with shipments to the A&W. This shipment, as well as several shipments we looked at to Algoma Plywood have been near the $1000/car mark. Taking the weight of the blueberries at 40,824 lbs. together with the value of bulk fresh blueberries in the 1950s of about 20 cents per pound suggests that the value of the cargo was on the order of $8,000. The shipping costs for the raw materials were over 10% of the value of the raw materials themselves. Chicoutimi blueberries may have been something special, but wouldn't you think that Door County blueberries or maybe blueberries from western Michigan might have been a little more cost effective?
I've had this idea for a while that its better to build freight cars in pairs. The real basis for the idea is that I'm pretty sure I'm going to screw up one of them during construction, and maybe out of two kits I can salvage one good car ;) I sort of rationalize it with this vague notion that some shipments came in doublets (or even multiple cars). This is the first example of a pure doublet that we've run across in this series of about 35 waybills, so as a rough guess we might estimate that there were maybe three doublets per 100 shipments. Just on a lark, I looked at the first 100 entries in the A&W tables on the GBW page referenced above. I found 5 instances of what I'll call a pure multi-car shipment, where identical loads came in on 2 or more cars from the same carrier and the same (or nearly identical) series. And there were four more examples of what I'll call mixed multi-car shipments where identical loads came in on 2 or more cars (XMs and FMs) from different carriers. This suggests to me the thought that multi-car deliveries to larger or busier consignees might occur with a frequency worth modeling.
I've started to think about modeling commodity flows using three different ingredients. The first is the meat and potatoes; the basic traffic lanes that make up 90% of the freight traffic on my layout. These commodity flows are in the 1 car per 10 shipments to 1 car per 100 shipment frequencies. Get these right and I'll probably have a pretty plausible scenario. The second is the less frequent, but still pretty regular, rail shippers. These commodity flows are in the 1 car per 100 to 1 car per 1,000 frequencies. They may be seasonal, they may be from smaller shippers or consignees, but they add texture to the meal. The third is the really rare shipments in the 1 carload per 10,000 frequency and beyond. These are like the spices that add dash to the whole picture. Although they are attractive and interesting, you don't want to use them too heavily though!
Andy's perspective on the preceding bullet, which I think states it well: "you may want to add some clarification to your 1 in 10XXX figures (that those are based on the national averages). Someone might think you will have to create 1000+ model waybills to get that amount of variability. {cjh note - Andy is quite correct about this clarification!} I used exactly your thought process on my A&W. The lion's share of my waybills were the "standard" commodities/lanes. Cans to Evangeline, Evap Milk out of Evangeline; steel into Christy Shipbuilding (from the mills that I had evidence of); sugar and cans into the canneries/team track, cherries out from same; petroleum products into the bulk dealers...then I put in some less common shipments to the variety of small industries...and the 'spice' were the few very unusual shipments like a large boiler, or a car for Door County Produce (which I only spotted twice in all my operating sessions), or a carload of ties for the A&W. I used a file card system that had a lot of "MISC" waybills that I used for the spice. I would typically only pull one or two each session...and having 40 or so waybills in there, it provided the right amount of variability. Whereas, the Evangeline tab in the file was usually empty because all the bills were out (very little variability)."

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

A Prototype Waybill - 35

December 22, 2013, 8:40 am

≫ Next: A Prototype Waybill - 36

≪ Previous: A Prototype Waybill - 34

One of the things I like best about prototype modeling is the interplay between theory and observation. Of course the ultimate principal behind prototype modeling is to rely on observation, but it seems like sooner or later there's some gap that appears in the historical record. Judging among the different tools to bridge those gaps is always an interesting exercise for me. The waybill is a most useful historical record that connects a shipper, consignee, route, and commodity with a freight car. The particular waybill that is the focus of this post describes a lot about the shipment of a tank car full of gasoline from the Sinclair refinery in East Chicago to a Sinclair distributor in Sturgeon Bay. But I think to fully appreciate what it would be like to see this shipment rolling into Casco Junction on a hot August day in 1962 we need to look a bit beyond the waybill itself. There's a couple of interesting questions about the shipment that we just can't answer from this document alone.

The waybill is from the August 29, 1962 train. This scan was provided by Andy Laurent:

Relationships to Other A&W Waybills:

In the table that Andy prepared that contains information from the first 326 waybills in the collection (on the GBW pages at http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills.htm), line 92 contains a similar shipment. On July 13 8084 gallons of gasoline were received at Sinclair in Sturgeon Bay from the East Chicago Sinclair refinery in UTLX 76881. One might start to develop the theory that this shipment is part of a traffic lane, and that this traffic lane has different characteristics than the Standard Oil shipments we have discussed earlier.

Format:

This is a full-size 8 1/2" by 11" waybill with standard center-fold design. The originating line-haul carrier was the EJ&E, and the waybill format is identical to the 2 other EJ&E waybills we have looked at so far. The data fields are in the newer style layout, and the form probably dates from the late 1950s or early 1960s. The EJ&E header is right justified across the top and the footer is centered across the bottom.

Typefaces, Preprinting, Stamps, and Handwriting:

The typeface is san serif, clean, and moderately bold. The numbers are old style with open-top fours.

There is no preprinting on the waybill.

The typical rectangular junction stamps, circular yard arrival stamps, and A&W destination stamp are present. The revenue for the shipment was calculated under a weight agreement, and the Western Weighing and Inspection Bureau stamp is crisp and was easily separated from the background. I compared this WWIB stamp with similar stamps on the other two EJ&E waybills we have looked at. This shipment originated at EJ&E Station 74 (Gary, Indiana) and had stamp number 2789. The other two shipments (of steel) originated at EJ&E Station 41 (South Chicago, Illinois) and both had stamp number 4092. One working hypothesis is that the stamp numbers are correlated with the originating stations. Another is that the stamp numbers designate the specific weight agreements between the shippers and carriers under which the shipment was made. The IDP stamp from Waukegan, indicating data entry about the shipment into the C&NW data processing system, is typical of shipments that were routed via C&NW. There is a big black "RUSH" stamp that I will discuss in more detail in the next section, and two green stamps "549" and "07" whose function is unknown at present. These might designate station numbers along the route, train numbers, or specific yard routings in the Chicago Switching District.

The handwriting includes the destination agent's freight bill number and the notation to rush the shipment.

Dates and Waybill Numbers:

The waybill number was 748267, while the waybill numbers from the other two EJ&E system were 417742 and 41?018. It may be that on the EJ&E series of waybill numbers were preassigned to stations.

The waybill was created August 20. On August 23, the shipment was interchanged in Waukegan from the EJ&E to the C&NW. The shipment was in Green Bay on the C&NW August 25, and interchanged onto the KGB in Green Bay on August 26. The shipment was stamped received in Sturgeon Bay on August 29.

The duration between the waybill creation date and the received date for this shipment included parts of 10 days. The other two EJ&E shipments (not stamped rush, and that were routed on the MILW via Rondout to Green Bay) took parts of 12 days and 16 days respectively. Maybe the RUSH stamp did some good!

The Car:

The car was UTLX 72030, a tank car. The Union Tank Car Company leased tank cars to Sinclair Refining Co. under both the SDRX and UTLX reporting marks. The January 1958 ORER lists 4 items (items 116, 117, 121, and 122) for the range UTLX 71000 to 79999. Since UTLX 72030 is not listed in any of the three noted items, we can associate it with item 116, which were 4523 "Tanks" with the AAR mechanical designation TM, 80,000 pounds capacity.

I am aware of two published photos of members of this item.

Kline and Culottaa, 2006 (The Postwar Freight Car Fleet, page 214) shows UTLX 71769 and describes it as a GATC product built in January 1920.
Culotta, 2006 (Steam Era Freight Cars Reference Manual Volume Two: Tank Cars, page 42) shows UTLX 78214 which is also a GATC product described as "WWI-era".

In my collection I also have scans of five other cars of this item: UTLX 71169, 71198, 72106, 72480, and 73676. These five all share the same spotting characteristics as the cars discussed by Kline and Culotta and Culotta, namely double sill steps, lack of side and end sills, riveted radial top courses over a single longitudinal bottom course, four tank bands, and safety valves on the top of the dome. At this point I was starting to develop a working hypothesis that UTLX 72030, the car identified by our waybill, was a 1920 GATC tank car.

I just about let the matter drop at this point with the thought that although 7 cars out of 4523 is an infinitesimal sample, 100% of that sample were GATC 1920-era cars. Fortunately, I happened to be cleaning up downstairs later that evening, and I ran across a P2K 8,000 gallon Type 21 riveted tank car kit in the stash lettered UTLX 78140. I knew that P2K Type 21 tank cars were typically lettered from photography supplied by Richard Hendrickson, and this kit was labeled "Limited Edition", so I did a bit more digging.

In STMFC 4217, referring to a P2K model (which he abbreviates as L-L for Lifelike) labeled UTLX 77340, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

"The L-L model is based on a photo in my collection of UTLX 77378, as well

as a photo of UTLX 94785. Both cars had the UTL standard placard boards,
sources for which have already been identified in a couple of other
responses. They also had only one platform and ladder (on the left side).
With regard to AB brakes, the arrangement fitted (or retro-fitted) to X-3s
of UTL's own design (and also used on L-L's model) was not followed in the
case of UTL-owned AC&F Type 21s. For some reason that isn't immediately
apparent, those cars had the reservoir with the AB valve directly above it
on the right side, opposite the cylinder."

and further in STMFC 5948:

"However, as I provided the prototype data for the L-L tank cars,
I can say with assurance that 77340 was an authentic number, based on
photos and documentation dating from the early 1950s. I can't say with
equal assurance that it was an authentic number in the late 1930s, as all
of the UTLX AC&F Type 21s were acquired second hand. However, many of them
came to UTL in the early 1930s when UTL bought the Skelly Oil Co. tank car
fleet, and it's highly likely that the Type 21s in the 77000 series were
ex-Skelly cars."

So I think the most definitive statement that I can make about UTLX 72030 is that it was one of 4523 80,000 lb. capacity TMs in UTLX 71000 to 79999, and that both GATC-built and ACF-built cars have been identified as members of this ORER item. The easier modeling approach would be to model the car as an ACF Type 21 and use the P2K model. To model the car as a GATC product, one might consider Sunshine #99 (http://www.sunshinekits.com/sunimages/sun99b.pdf) if one could be found. Another approach might be to use Tangent's underframe (which is a GATC Type 30 rather than a GATC Type 17), backdate the underframe, and try to find or fashion an appropriate 8K tank that would fit.

The Shipper:

The shipper was the Sinclair Refining Co.'s large refinery in East Chicago, Indiana. It was served by the B&O Chicago Terminal, as well as by marine tanker. The EJ&E's Gary station was located a couple of miles to the east, and this area was within the Chicago Switching District. This was a huge facility that not only refined and shipped petroleum products but also produced petroleum coke and shipped a lot of chemical byproducts:

The Consignee:

The consignee was the Sinclair Refining Co. bulk facility in Sturgeon Bay. This was a small bulk plant on the north side of Sturgeon Bay, close to Christy Shipbuilding Co. It had 6 vertical tanks and a retail service station (inside black rectangle, upper right):

This facility in Sturgeon Bay was May Oil Co., dating from sometime prior to 1938 through 1960. May Oil was originally affiliated with Texaco, but switched to Sinclair sometime prior to ca. 1960. Other Sinclair bulk terminals on the Ahnapee & Western were in Casco and Maplewood (under the Casco Co-Operative Oil Co. name).

The Route:

The line-haul route was:

GARY - EJE - WAUKEGAN - CNW - GREEN BAY - KGB - CASCO JUNCTION - AW - STURGEON BAY

I calculated the short line-haul as:

EJE: 120 miles

CNW: 165 miles

KGB: 23 miles

AW: 34 miles

total: 339 miles

The Commodity:

The commodity was 8,082 gallons of gasoline. Gasoline was in ICC Commodity Class 501, Gasoline. The weight and rate calculation was based on 6.6 lbs./gallon and 47.5 cents per hundred weight, resulting in a calculated weight of 55,341 lbs. and a calculated rate of $253.37. If gasoline retailed for $0.25/gallon or so, the value at the pump of the gasoline was about $2,040; yet another example of the shipping costs being more than a tenth of the value of the cargo.

The state to state data for Wisconsin in the 1% carload waybill survey show a changing pattern during the 1950s:

In the early 1950s, a majority of the rail traffic in gasoline was imports to Wisconsin from other states. Toward the end of the decade, the rail traffic was much more evenly split among imports, exports, and internal distribution (i.e., Wisconsin to Wisconsin traffic). This change in shipping pattern was a result of the increase in distribution of refined petroleum products by pipeline (e.g., the completion of the pipeline to Superior) and the increase in maritime deliveries through the Ports of Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Superior.

This table shows the carloads per year for rail imports to Wisconsin, averaged over 1950 through 1952 and over 1956 through 1958:

From:	<50-52>	<56-58>
Illinois	1233	700
Indiana	1133	233
Iowa	133	233
Kansas	333	33
Louisiana	700	33
Michigan	300	0
Minnesota	2000	1433
Oklahoma	2133	67
Texas	2067	167

total	10033	2900

The overall decrease in imports to Wisconsin is apparent. Our shipment in 1962 from Indiana is clearly part of a declining trend. Note the large decline in rail traffic from states that are not adjacent to Wisconsin.

This table shows the carloads per year for Wisconsin rail exports, averaged over the same time periods:

To:	<50-52>	<56-58>
Iowa	33	0
Michigan	500	467
Minnesota	1300	1333
North Dakota	67	33

total	1900	1833

There were an annual average of 2067 carloads originating and terminating in Wisconsin each year from 1950 through 1952, and 3867 from 1956 through 1958.

Clearly during the early part of the 1950s shipments like the one portrayed in this waybill, from a producing refinery to a bulk distributor, were in the majority. Toward the end of the decade the rail traffic in Wisconsin was much more redistributional; from intermediate terminals and storage facilities to local bulk distributors.

In 1960, shipments from Indiana to Wisconsin in the 1% sample averaged 31 tons, 87 miles, and $87 in revenue. Our shipment was slightly less heavy (at about 27 tons), but significantly longer and more expensive than the averages from the sample.

Special Instructions:

There are no entries in the On C. L. - Traffic Instructions box. The waybill is stamped "RUSH". The originating agent also noted that the car had dangerous placards applied.

Freight Car Distribution:

This is a privately-owned car that was on a mileage basis. It was almost certainly returned empty via the service route to the shipper (on a regular freight waybill noting the last contents) to equalize mileage.

Other Thoughts:

As soon as I saw this waybill I thought of Ullman and the other economic geographers that were trying to create a semi-quantitative theory of the physical movements of goods in the 1950s. According to these theorists, the major factors that promote trade are complementarity, lack of intervening opportunity, and propinquity. This particular observable instance of trade does have a high degree of complementarity; there is a surplus of refined petroleum product at the refinery, and a corresponding demand for that product at the bulk distributor in Sturgeon Bay. However, there are many intervening opportunities between the shipper and consignee; a situation that the theorists would argue would result in displacement. For example, the Standard Oil distributors along the A&W got their products from the marine terminal in Green Bay. We saw a waybill for a shipment of 8,000 gallons of gasoline from Green Bay to Algoma that took 2 days and cost $35, about one seventh of the time and cost of our shipment. And if it just had to be from a Sinclair facility, the Sinclair marine terminal in Milwaukee was about 200 miles closer and on this side of the Chicago maze. It is clear that in certain instances, traffic lanes are built up around corporate relationships, practices, and preferences that just don't fit the economic theories. And I think one of the real values of the waybill collection is that periodically it reminds us of this important observable.
There were several marine terminals (including Sinclair) in the Port of Milwaukee for which I need to develop traffic profiles. This waybill makes me want to think about an alternative to simply sending tank cars from these terminals to bulk distributors according to an economic gravity model. I don't exactly know what approach to use right now, but it is a good challenge. In our correspondence about this post Andy raised the notion that maybe the scaler quantity "distance" in the gravity model should be replaced with a vector quantity (i.e., something that has direction as well as magnitude). This type of modeling is used a lot in geostatistics, for example trying to predict the shape and gradations in quality of ore bodies or petroleum reservoirs that are buried deep in the ground, difficult to sample, and directionally controlled. There is a lot of recent literature on directional-based and network-based modeling summarized here (http://www.freight.dot.gov/fmip/models/library.htm#ref5) that might be interesting to look at.
In the absence of any other information, I think I probably would have modeled a shipment from a Sinclair refinery to a Sinclair bulk distributor in an SDRX car with a big white SINCLAIR across the front. In fact, if you google sinclair tank car and click the images tab that's what you will see. I think another one of the values of the waybill collection is that it sends us periodic little reminders to examine our preconceptions to become better prototype modelers.

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

A Prototype Waybill - 36

December 24, 2013, 7:30 am

≫ Next: FGEX Reefers - January 1958 ORER Transcription

≪ Previous: A Prototype Waybill - 35

This waybill continues the documentation of the August 29, 1962 shipments to the Ahnapee & Western at Casco Junction. It was scanned from the A&W Waybill Collection by Andy Laurent. The waybill describes a shipment of coal from Coal City Indiana to Evangeline Milk Co. in Sturgeon Bay:

This waybill is nearly identical to the one described in detail in this post (http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/05/a-prototype-waybill-28.html). The shipper, consignee, route, commodity, waybill form, formatting, stamps, and typeface are all similar. So for this post, rather than provide a repetitive discussion of the material from a previous post, we thought we would focus on the freight car used for the shipment and on the profile of the rail deliveries to Evangeline Milk Co.

The Car:

The car is NYC 869343, a two-bay open top hopper car. In the January 1958 ORER the NYC listed 1,982 Steel, Self-Clearing HM hoppers in NYC 868000 to 869999. The dimensional data were:
IL 31' 6"
IW 10' 4"
OL 32' 6"
EW 10' 5"
EH 11'
Capy 2210 cu. ft. 110,000 lbs.

Two thousand of these hoppers were built by DSI for the NYC in 1948 under lot 769-H (http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/NYC-MODELS-FREIGHT2.htm#L107; scroll about half way down, or search on the page by lot number). There is also a builders photo here (http://www.canadasouthern.com/caso/images/nyc-868000.jpg). In the modeler's notes Kadee 7001 is suggested as a reasonably accurate model with the note that the "NYC car was taller and shorter than the model" and that there are some differences in the side panels (http://www.kadee.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=652). In STMFC message 79009 Gene Green mentioned that some cars in this series had Klasing handbrakes.

What did Evangeline Milk Co. receive by rail?

During the period June 27, 1962 through August 29, 1962 inclusive, Evangeline Milk received rail shipments of three commodities:

coal (ICC Commodity Class 305; Bituminous Coal)
metal cans (ICC Commodity Class 779: Containers, Metal)
cardboard boxes (ICC Commodity Class 783; Containers, Fibreboard and Paperboard KD)

These were the coal shipments:

ID	Shipper	From	OLHC	Car	Date
10	Peabody Coal Co.	Bixby Ky.	IC	IC 93226	06/29/62
27	Peabody Coal Co.	Bixby Ky.	IC	IC 69152	07/02/62
58	Nashville Coal Co.	Fies Ky.	IC	DH 6224	07/06/62
126	Cardinal Fuel & Supply Co.	McClure Ky.	LN	LN 68608	07/20/62
156	Cardinal Fuel & Supply Co.	McClure Ky.	LN	LN 119051	07/25/62
172	Cardinal Fuel & Supply Co.	McClure Ky.	LN	LN 84642	07/27/62
200	Cardinal Fuel & Supply Co.	McClure Ky.	LN	LN 118268	08/01/62
229	Cardinal Fuel & Supply Co.	McClure Ky.	LN	LN 71689	08/06/62
250	Peabody Coal Co.	Coal City Ind.	NYC	NYC 876129	08/10/62
270	Peabody Coal Co.	Coal City Ind.	NYC	NYC 877883	08/15/62
283	Peabody Coal Co.	Coal City Ind.	NYC	NYC 879017	08/17/62
PW28	Peabody Coal Co.	Coal City Ind.	NYC	NYC 863977	08/27/62
PW36	Peabody Coal Co.	Coal City Ind.	NYC	NYC 869343	08/29/62

The column marked ID contains either the row number from the table Andy prepared for the GBW pages (http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills.htm) or the post number if the documentation was from a blog post (i.e., PW28 is Prototype Waybill post #28 and PW36 is Prototype Waybill post #36, this post). There were 13 coal shipments to Evangeline during this 63-day period, about 1 every 5 days although it should be noted that the shipments came in irregular clumps. 4 shippers served by three different carriers are represented. As we continue on to evaluate more waybills I'll be interested in finding out whether Evangeline cycled through a selected set of shippers or settled in on a preferred supplier. Also note that in every case but one (the third entry in the table) the car for the shipment was a home road car. It's interesting to me that a modeler of northern Wisconsin would need to roster IC, L&N, and NYC hoppers (and that's just to serve this industry; during the same time period there were coals shipments in C&O and MILW hoppers).

These were the metal can shipments:

ID	Shipper	From	OLHC	Car	Date
11	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	CNW 21084	06/29/62
28	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	NP 8312	07/02/62
29	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	CNW 8705	07/02/62
59	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 48000	07/06/62
66	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	EL 73448	07/09/62
78	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 48394	07/11/62
101	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 46988	07/16/62
113	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 46628	07/18/62
127	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 46282	07/20/62
137	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	PLE 20873	07/23/62
173	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 136194	07/27/62
188	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 48314	07/30/62
214	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	CNW 20226	08/02/62
230	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 136126	08/06/62
249	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 137634	08/10/62
260	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	EL 73409	08/13/62
271	Phelps Can Co.	Weirton, W.Va.	PRR	PRR 22579	08/15/62
289	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	UP 104219	08/20/62
290	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 2206	08/20/62
323	Phelps Can Co.	Burlington Wisc.	SOO	SOO 45526	08/27/62

There were 20 shipments of metal cans, or about 1 every three days. All but one of the shipments were from the Phelps plant in Burlington, Wisc. which was served by the Soo Line. The Phelps plant in Burlington was acquired from Nestle by Phelps in December 1959 and began production of 14.5 ounce milk cans for 5 milk plants including Evangeline Milk Co. (after 1959 baby cans were still produced in Weirton by Phelps, which accounts for the single shipment during this period that originated on the PRR). The Burlington plant closed in August 1965 (about a year and a half after Evangeline shut down) and was sold back to Nestle. This is a photo of that facility taken in 1949:

Home road boxcars were used for the Burlington Phelps shipments more than half of the time. The other shipments were in what appears to be randomly selected cars; it did not appear that the SOO Agent in Burlington was overly concerned with the AAR Car Selection process.

These were the cardboard box shipments:

ID	Shipper	From	OLHC	Car	Date
268	Mead Packaging Co.	Lawrence Mass.	BM	BCK 2345	08/15/62
282	Mead Packaging Co.	Lawrence Mass.	BM	ATSF 276647	08/17/62

There were two shipments, or about one every 30 days. Note that they came in a clump near the middle of the time period, two shipments separated by only a couple of days.

Where did the product go?

The A&W collection only captures terminating waybills, so we have no direct evidence for the frequencies or destinations of rail shipments outbound from Evangeline Milk Co. Andy does have some company newsletters from First National Stores (Evangeline's parent company, a grocery chain in the Boston area), and they describe both the manufacturing process at the plant, and some details including the routing of milk from Sturgeon Bay. All the evaporated milk from the plant was shipped to First National Stores ("FINAST" brand). Their warehouses were in Providence, RI and Somerville, Mass. Route: AW-KGBW-C&O-NKP-DLW-NYO&W-NH for the Providence destination, taking 6 days. Casco Cheese Company on the A&W was also owned by First National Stores, and sold 80% of their product to the Massachusetts chain as well.

With respect to the Port of Milwaukee, data from Schenker (The Port of Milwaukee) suggest that a lot of evaporated and condensed milk from Wisconsin was shipped by car ferry to eastern destinations, and a lot was exported to Europe (of which some almost certainly entered the Port by rail).

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

FGEX Reefers - January 1958 ORER Transcription

December 24, 2013, 9:13 am

≫ Next: A Prototype Waybill - 37

≪ Previous: A Prototype Waybill - 36

This transcription is from the January 1958 ORER. It was sorted from most numerous to least numerous items.

Page	Item	Marking	AAR MD	Total	#Start	#End	#Flg	IL	IH	DW	CuFt (Gal)	Capy (lbs)
564	34	FGEX	RS	1061	32100	35898	B	33.229	6.833	4.000	1872	75,000
566	1	FGEX	RS	713	55500	56999	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	17	FGEX	RS	698	57000	58899	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
565	32	FGEX	RS	644	50000	51999	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
564	12	FGEX	RP	600	1000	1600	B	44.417	7.833	6.000	3035	128,000
564	52	FGEX	RS	587	36000	37999	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	75,000
566	35	FGEX	RS	575	59000	59999	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
565	57	FGEX	RS	480	55000	55499	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	61	FGEX	RS	376	38000	38449	B	33.229	7.667	4.000	2110	75,000
565	3	FGEX	RS	361	38635	38999	B	33.229	7.333	4.000	2022	75,000
565	6	FGEX	RS	296	39000	39299	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	75,000
565	13	FGEX	RS	293	39500	39799	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	75,000
565	11	FGEX	RS	198	39300	39499	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	75,000
565	53	FGEX	RS	147	52230	52679	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90000
565	2	FGEX	RS	134	38501	38634	B	33.229	7.333	4.000	2022	75,000
566	16	FGEX	RS	102	56456	56600	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	13	FGEX	RP	100	10000	10099	B	44.417	7.833	6.000	3035	128,000
566	26	FGEX	RS	99	57675	57774	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	46	FGEX	RS	97	35900	35999	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	75,000
566	43	FGEX	RS	97	59575	59674	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	90,000
566	11	FGEX	RS	95	56151	56248	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	45	FGEX	RS	94	59725	59824	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	75,000
565	16	FGEX	RS	92	39800	39999	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	100,000
566	52	FGEX	RS	90	59900	59999	L	33.229	7.250	6.000	1987	90,000
566	31	FGEX	RS	70	58000	58069	B	33.229	7.417	6.000	2050	100,000
566	14	FGEX	RS	65	56280	56349	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	24	FGEX	RS	60	16100	16299	B	33.229	6.833	4.000	1872	75,000
564	5	FGEX	RP	56	340	399	B	43.667	8.500	6.000	3217	120,000
563	36	FGEX	RP	52	115	199	L	44.417	7.833	6.000	3035	128,000
566	22	FGEX	RS	52	57001	57925	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	63	FGEX	RS	48	38450	38499	B	33.229	7.667	4.000	2110	75,000
565	52	FGEX	RS	46	52005	52229	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
566	33	FGEX	RS	41	58085	58200	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	100,000
564	4	FGEX	RP	40	260	299	B	35.000	7.417	6.000	1872	105,000
566	47	FGEX	RS	39	59841	59889	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	24	FGEX	RS	33	57281	57860	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	36	FGEX	RS	32	59000	59999	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	33	FGEX	RS	31	32000	32099	B	33.229	6.750	4.000	1860	75,000
564	2	FGEX	RP	30	220	249	B	43.667	8.500	6.000	3217	120,000
566	12	FGEX	RS	30	56205	56279	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	28	FGEX	RS	30	57926	57955	L	33.229	7.417	6.000	2050	75,000
564	14	FGEX	RS	28	10850	10999	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1996	75,000
564	21	FGEX	RS	27	11301	11349	B	33.229	6.750	4.000	1861	75,000
564	25	FGEX	RS	26	16300	16489	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1993	75,000
565	23	FGEX	RS	21	43500	46797	B	32.583	6.833	4.000	1885	90,000
565	34	FGEX	RS	18	50000	51999	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
566	32	FGEX	RS	15	58070	58084	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	100,000
564	15	FGEX	RS	14	11001	11175	B	33.229	7.000	4.000	1924	75,000
564	1	FGEX	RP	11	209	219	B	43.667	8.500	6.000	3155	120,000
565	54	FGEX	RS	11	52680	52779	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1996	90,000
566	34	FGEX	RS	11	58900	58999	B	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
564	3	FGEX	RP	10	250	259	B	34.750	7.250	6.000	2078	99,000
565	24	FGEX	RS	10	43500	46797	L	32.583	6.833	4.167	1887	90,000
565	33	FGEX	RS	7	50000	51999	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	61	FGEX	RS	7	55000	55499	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
563	34	FGEX	RB	6	101	109	B	33.750	7.250	6.000	2024	100,000
565	36	FGEX	RS	6	50000	51999	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
566	21	FGEX	RS	6	57000	57323	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
565	21	FGEX	RS	4	39893	39896	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	100,000
566	5	FGEX	RS	4	56038	56481	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	22	FGEX	RS	3	11442	11540	L	32.500	6.833	4.000	1809	50,000
565	35	FGEX	RS	3	50000	51999	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	43	FGEX	RS	3	51027	51468	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	64	FGEX	RS	3	55179	55461	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	23	FGEX	RS	2	14009	14557	B	32.500	6.833	4.000	1907	75,000
564	27	FGEX	RS	2	18109	18342	B	32.500	7.250	4.000	1969	50,000
564	35	FGEX	RS	2	32102	32579	L	33.229	6.750	4.000	1860	75,000
564	36	FGEX	RS	2	33798	34233	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	75,000
564	41	FGEX	RS	2	33249	35060	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	75,000
564	44	FGEX	RS	2	35881	35882	L	32.500	6.750	4.000	1789	50,000
564	53	FGEX	RS	2	36197	37484	L	32.667	7.250	4.000	1979	75,000
564	54	FGEX	RS	2	36429	37655	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
565	4	FGEX	RS	2	38827	38941	L	33.229	7.333	6.000	2022	100,000
565	26	FGEX	RB	2	45121	46719	L	39.833	7.083	4.167	2390	90,000
565	42	FGEX	RS	2	50204	50643	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
565	47	FGEX	RS	2	51867	51900	L	33.229	7.500	4.000	2094	90,000
565	62	FGEX	RS	2	55022	55271	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	2	FGEX	RS	2	55284	55879	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	4	FGEX	RS	2	56030	56068	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	27	FGEX	RS	2	57849	57855	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	37	FGEX	RS	2	59078	59572	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	42	FGEX	RS	2	59345	59563	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	51	FGEX	RS	2	59851	59852	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
563	35	FGEX	RP	1	111	111	B	33.229	7.125	4.000	1894	100,000
563	41	FGEX	RP	1	205	205	B	43.667	7.917	6.000	2986	125,000
563	42	FGEX	RP	1	207	207	B	34.667	7.250	4.000	2110	100,000
563	43	FGEX	RPM	1	208	208	B	34.000	6.417	6.000	1814	75,000
564	6	FGEX	RP	1	380	380	L	43.667	8.250	6.000	3130	120,000
564	11	FGEX	RP	1	399	399	L	44.500	7.833	6.000	3041	120,000
564	16	FGEX	RS	1	11226	11226	B	32.250	6.667	4.000	1717	50,000
564	17	FGEX	RS	1	11251	11251	B	32.250	6.667	4.000	1717	50,000
564	26	FGEX	RS	1	18065	18065	B	32.500	6.500	4.000	1750	50,000
564	31	FGEX	RS	1	21202	21202	B	33.229	6.750	4.000	1860	75,000
564	32	FGEX	RS	1	21339	21339	B	32.500	6.750	4.000	1789	50,000
564	42	FGEX	RS	1	34182	34182	L	32.229	7.667	4.000	2110	75,000
564	43	FGEX	RS	1	34457	34457	L	33.229	6.750	4.000	1860	75,000
564	45	FGEX	RS	1	35884	35884	L	32.500	6.750	4.000	1789	50,000
564	51	FGEX	RS	1	35951	35951	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
564	55	FGEX	RS	1	36439	36439	L	32.667	7.250	4.000	1979	75,000
564	56	FGEX	RS	1	37149	37149	L	32.750	7.250	4.000	1984	75,000
564	62	FGEX	RS	1	38034	38034	L	33.229	7.583	4.000	2087	75,000
565	1	FGEX	RS	1	38500	38500	B	33.229	7.333	4.000	2022	75,000
565	5	FGEX	RS	1	38967	38967	L	33.229	7.250	6.000	1987	100,000
565	7	FGEX	RS	1	39074	39074	L	33.229	7.250	6.000	1987	75,000
565	12	FGEX	RS	1	39400	39400	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	100,000
565	14	FGEX	RS	1	39719	39719	L	33.229	7.250	6.000	1987	100,000
565	15	FGEX	RS	1	39730	39730	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	100,000
565	17	FGEX	RS	1	39892	39892	L	33.229	7.250	6.000	1987	100,000
565	22	FGEX	RS	1	40000	40000	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	80,000
565	25	FGEX	RB	1	46344	46344	L	40.000	7.167	4.167	2501	90,000
565	27	FGEX	RB	1	46335	46335	L	40.000	7.083	4.167	2387	90,000
565	31	FGEX	RS	1	46797	46797	L	32.583	6.833	4.167	1877	90,000
565	37	FGEX	RS	1	50027	50027	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1852	90,000
565	41	FGEX	RS	1	50179	50179	L	33.229	7.000	4.000	1872	90,000
565	44	FGEX	RS	1	51386	51386	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	45	FGEX	RS	1	51665	51665	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	46	FGEX	RS	1	51805	51805	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
565	51	FGEX	RS	1	52003	52003	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	1933	90,000
565	55	FGEX	RS	1	52781	52781	B	33.229	7.250	4.000	2013	90,000
565	56	FGEX	RB	1	52786	52786	B	38.750	7.167	4.000	2229	75,000
565	63	FGEX	RS	1	55032	55032	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	3	FGEX	RS	1	55923	55923	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	6	FGEX	RS	1	56070	56070	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	7	FGEX	RS	1	56137	56137	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	13	FGEX	RS	1	56249	56249	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	15	FGEX	RS	1	56291	56291	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	23	FGEX	RS	1	57257	57257	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	25	FGEX	RS	1	57645	57645	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	41	FGEX	RS	1	59325	59325	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	90,000
566	44	FGEX	RS	1	59606	59606	L	33.229	7.417	4.000	2050	75,000
566	46	FGEX	RS	1	59821	59821	L	33.229	7.250	4.000	1987	75,000

↧

A Prototype Waybill - 37

December 28, 2013, 2:19 pm

≫ Next: Canadian Rail Flows of Fertilizer Materials

≪ Previous: FGEX Reefers - January 1958 ORER Transcription

A couple of posts ago we looked at a waybill that documented two shipments from Canada in Canadian rail cars (blueberries from Quebec in 8-hatch overhead bunker reefers) that turned out to be a very rare commodity flow. That waybill offers an opportunity to feature a couple of interesting and recognizable freight cars, but its plausible application to a variety of layout situations is rather limited.

Today's waybill also involves a shipment from Canada but it exemplifies a much more common commodity flow. In fact, shipments of newsprint from Canada were the single largest commodity flow from Canada in the 1950s, and they even outnumbered domestic (U.S. to U.S.) rail shipments of newsprint by a wide margin. As we will see, this commodity flow from Canada to the U.S. was not geographically restricted either; significant numbers of these shipments terminated in most U.S. states throughout the 1950s. This waybill is transferrable to a wide variety of layout situations. Andy provided the scan from the A&W Waybill Collection:

Relationship to Other A&W Waybills:

Row 87 in the waybill table Andy made for the GBW pages that cover a two month period contain one related shipment (http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills.htm). This related waybill was a shipment of newsprint in Ontario Northland 90228 (a box car in the same series as the box car from this waybill) from the Abitibi Sales Co. Ltd. (the same shipper from this waybill) to Algoma Printing Co. in Algoma. The routing on the related waybill appears to be a bit more efficient than the routing on this waybill; we'll expand on that a bit in the routing section of this post.

Format:

This is a standard-sized waybill with center-fold symmetry. The layout of the data fields is a bit different in organization than the other waybills we have seen, which adds a bit of variety. The form is undated. The header is centered rather than the more typical right-justification. The interline code number is only on the left side of the carrier name in the header, whereas all of the waybills we have looked at to date have the interline code number repeated on both sides of the carrier name. This waybill would visually stand out in a packet of standard forms.

Typefaces, Preprinting, Stamps, and Handwriting:

This is a third instance (occurring about 1 in every 10 times or so) of lower-case type used by an agent/clerk. The typeface is serif, crisp, and extended. The numbers are newer style (lining) with closed top fours.

The station (Iroquois Falls, Ont.) and the shipper (Abitibi Sales Company, Limited) appear to be preprinted; their placements are perfectly horizontal and centered in the fields. Andy confirmed that these are preprinted by re-examining the waybill. The notation "Customs Papers Attached Shippers Load and Count" may also be preprinted. The Abitibi Power & Paper Co. Ltd. was an important shipper on an otherwise sparsely populated branch line, and preprinting may have saved the agent a lot of time.

The typical yard arrival stamps (circular) and interchange stamps (rectangular) document the progress of the shipment. There are stamps documenting entry into the data processing systems of the Ontario Northland (ABSTRACTED NORTH BAY O.N.R.), the Canadian Pacific (the triangular stamp BASIC REPORTED NORTH BAY KZ and ABSTRACTED AT NORTH BAY C.P.R.), the Soo Line (BASIC TAPE PREPARED SOO), and the CNW (IDP C&NW E. ST. PAUL). There is a fainter stamp just below the ABSTRACTED AT NORTH BAY C.P.R stamp that contains some data fields with handwriting that may have been part of the data entry process. There is a stamp documenting the passage of the car through customs at Sault Ste. Marie. The weight for the shipment was calculated by Shipper's Load and Count under a weight agreement. The stamp documenting the weight agreement reads "222 This Stamp must be used ONLY ON billing for business Covered by Weight Agreement" supports the hypothesis that the stamp number is correlated to the commodity (rather than to the station of origin).

Dates and Waybill Numbers:

The waybill number was 6022 with the notation Int. K appended. This waybill number may have been one in a series reserved for international shipments.

The waybill was created on August 18, 1962 in Iroquois Falls, Ontario. On August 19th, the shipment was interchanged from ONT to CP in North Bay. On August 21st, the shipment was interchanged to the SOO at Sault Ste. Marie (Mich.). On August 26th the car was interchanged from the C&NW to the KGB via the GBW in Green Bay. The shipment was stamped received in Sturgeon Bay on August 29.

The Car:

The car was ONT 90955, a box car. This was one of 985 Steel XMs in ONT 90000 to 90999 listed by the Ontario Northland in the Jan. 1958 ORER. The dimensional data were:

IL 40' 6"
IW 9' 2"
IH 10'
OL 41' 8"
EW 10' 8"
EH 14' 8"
Door Opening 6' wide by 9' 5" high
Capy 3712 cu. ft. and 90,000 lbs.

These were 1937 AAR-style box cars built by National Steel Car Co. in 1947. There's an exceptionally good on-line in-service photo of ONT 90126 here (http://searcharchives.vancouver.ca/uploads/r/null/9/2/926705/74f4a0d9-dfb1-4959-bac0-e38686d76fd0-A28874.jpg). Note the car ends with the vertical bars between the horizontal ribs and the stenciled notation "THIS CAR FOR CLEAN LADING ONLY". Another photo of a car in the Ontario's Development Road scheme is here (http://www.trainlife.com/magazines/pages/2/87/june-1989-page-19). Swain and Hendrickson (1988) discussed Canadian prototypes for the 1937 AAR-style boxcars in this article (http://www.trainlife.com/magazines/pages/321/23950/august-1988-page-48) although they did not directly discuss the Ontario Northland cars. In HO, an easy modeling approach is the Trueline Trains car with NSC ends: http://www.truelinetrains.ca/freight-cars/1937-40-box-car.

The Shipper:

The shipper was Abitibi Sales Co. Ltd. This was the distribution and shipping arm of Abitibi Power & Paper Co. Ltd., a major newsprint producer in northern Ontario. The paper mill is still in operation and an oblique aerial photograph of the site graces the home page of Iroquois Falls (http://www.iroquoisfalls.com). It was a big facility that was at the end of a branch line on the Ontario Northland near the northern end of the main line. Abitibi Power & Paper developed the hydroelectric plant and the paper mill that became a major producer of newsprint for the midwestern U.S. (http://www.heritagetrust.on.ca/CMSImages/50/5030a14e-6834-47e6-8a33-1d09cdd788d9.pdf)

The Consignee:

The consignee was the Door County Advocate, a newspaper publisher. Their facility was located at 11 North 3rd Ave. in Sturgeon Bay, in an area that was not served by rail. This shipment was a delivery to the A&W team track which was several blocks north of the newspaper publisher. The Algoma Printing Co. had a similar arrangement for unloading at the team track in downtown Algoma.

The Route:

The route was:

IROQUOIS FALLS - ONT - NORTH BAY - CP - ST. MARY'S TRANSFER (SAULT STE. MARIE) - SOO - ST. PAUL - CNW - GREEN BAY - KGB - CASCO JUNCTION - AW - STURGEON BAY

I calculated the short-line haul as:

ONT 236 miles
CP 258 miles
SOO 491 miles
CNW 302 miles
KGB 23 miles
AW 34 miles

total 1,344 miles

I appears to me that the trip could have been shortened about 500 or 600 miles by more judicious routing in northern Wisconsin, rather that taking the SOO all the way over to St. Paul and the CNW all the way back east to Green Bay. The shipment of newsprint from Abitibi to Algoma used a SOO - MILW connection in northern Wisconsin that was much more efficient.

The Commodity:

The commodity was 26 tons of newsprint (48 rolls). Newsprint was in ICC Commodity Class 657, Newsprint. The weight was calculated from shipper's load and count under a weight agreement.

Data Regarding the Commodity Flow:

The ICC 1% waybill survey shows that on a national basis, commodity flows of newsprint were consistently strong through the 1950s. In fact, unlike most other commodities we have looked at, domestic terminations of newsprint actually increased during the decade:

The vast majority of these shipments were in box cars. The exceptions in the 1% sample were 2 shipments in refrigerator cars and 8 shipments on flat cars. The flat car shipments were all post-1955 and were probably TOFC traffic.

On a state-to-state basis Maine was consistently the dominant source of domestic carloads of newsprint (Washington state was a distant second, shipping primarily to a few states in the west). This map shows the average annual carloads of newsprint originating in Maine during the period 1951 through 1953:

Commodity flows from Canada to the U.S. were about two to three times the domestic flows. This map shows the average annual carloads of newsprint originating in Canada during 1951 through 1953:

This map shows the national distribution and high intensity of Canadian newsprint rail shipments. This is not a small diffusive flow leaking across the border - it is a total domination of the commodity flow by a small number of Canadian newsprint producers.

Looking at the rail traffic from the consignees point of view, this table shows the sources of newsprint for consignees in Wisconsin during that same period:

To Wisc.	<51-53>
From:	Carloads	<tons/car>	<Rev/car>
Canada	2167	30	412
Wisconsin	67	25	138

At 26 tons and a revenue of $615, our shipment was a bit lighter and a bit more expensive than the average shipment from Canada. Note that Canadian rail shipments of newsprint outnumber all domestic shipments to Wisconsin by a factor of about 30. Wisconsin was fairly typical in this respect. In the eastern U.S. there was a bit more domestic competition, primarily from in Maine:

To N.Y.	<51-53>
From:	Carloads	<tons/car>	<Rev/car>
Canada	20767	27	397
Maine	2767	27	339
Massachusetts	33	20	174
New Hampshire	33	27	274
New Jersey	33	29	195
New York	33	24	120
Wisconsin	33	23	403

and only in California was domestic traffic greater than Canadian:

To Calif.	<51-53>
From:	Carloads	<tons/car>	<Rev/car>
Canada	600	30	650
California	1433	28	40
Oregon	367	30	399
Washington	1267	30	482
Wisconsin	67	24	920

Data from 1963 (Schenker, The Port of Milwaukee) show that there was a strong marine flow in newsprint and suggest that much of the Canadian newsprint rail traffic arrived via car ferry:

	Tons	Box Car Eq.
Imports (shipborn)	55380	1846
Car Ferry Receipts	98944	3298
Car Ferry Shipments	676	23

Special Instructions:

There were no special instructions.

Freight Car Distribution:

This is a home road car shipped to a foreign-road destination, Class 1B. This appears to have been typical for Canadian shipments to the U.S.

Other Thoughts:

This waybill got me thinking about the notion of transferability. Suppose we consider a waybill documenting a shipment transferrable if if is plausible not just in its own setting, but in a wide variety of contexts. It seems to me that the waybill documenting the blueberries from a Canadian grower to a canning plant are not readily transferrable to other settings. This waybill tells me something about Ahnapee and Western traffic patterns, but not much that is generalizable to Milwaukee or Cleveland or Orlando. The delivery of newsprint from Canada in a Canadian car seems transferrable to almost any setting in the United States in the 1950s. All that's required is a local newspaper publisher and a team track on which to make the delivery. In this sense the A&W collection is not just documenting something that happened within the localized setting of Sturgeon Bay Wisconsin, but is exemplifying something that occurred across much of the U.S.

Modeling in the western U.S. you might modify the newsprint scheme a bit using different shippers and cars:

British Columbia Forest Products Ltd., originating in Vancouver on the CP
Crown Zellerbach Canada, originating in North Vancouver on the PGE or CP

while in the east one could consider:

Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd., originating in Windsor Mills Quebec on the QC/CN

and in the midwest, in addition to Abitibi one could mix in:

Howard Smith Paper Mills Ltd., originating in Cornwall Ontario on the CP/CN
Spruce Falls Power & Paper Co. originating in Kapuskasing Ontario on the CN
Ontario Paper Co., Ltd. originating in Thorold Ontario on the THB/CN

In any case, this is a plausible opportunity for relatively frequent shipments in a Canadian box car to almost any U.S. destination in the 1950s.

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧

Canadian Rail Flows of Fertilizer Materials

December 29, 2013, 6:07 pm

≫ Next: A Soo TOFC Commodity Flow

≪ Previous: A Prototype Waybill - 37

In an earlier waybill post (http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-prototype-waybill-37.html) we discussed the commodity flow of newsprint from Canada to the U.S. I remarked that it was the dominant rail flow of Canadian commodities to the U.S., and that in fact it exceeded domestic newsprint sources by a wide margin.

In a query to the STMFC, Eric Neubauer wrote:

"How about potash? At least recently most seems to come from Canada.

Eric"

Potash is a commodity in commodity class 539, Fertilizers N.O.S. Unlike newsprint, which is a homogeneous commodity class, fertilizers are a diverse mix of materials (some of which are fairly unsavory):

Commodity Class 539

Fertilizers, N.O.S.

Agricultural Lime

Agricultural Limestone

Alkali salts, crude

Ammonia, sulphate of

Ashes, bagasse

Ashes, brush

Ashes, burr

Ashes, cactus

Ashes, cotton boll

Ashes, cotton hull

Ashes, Kelp

Ashes, manure

Ashes, wood

Basic slag

Blood, dried (not feed)

Bone black, spent

Bone, charred filtering

Bone dust

Bone, ground

Bone meal, fertilizer

Castor bean hulls

Castor pomace

Cement flue dust

Charcoal, animal, spent

Chile saltpeter

Cocoa bean shells

Cyanamid

Distillery molasses

Fertilizer blacks

Fertilizer compound

Fertilizer ingredients

Fertilizer, noibn

Fertilizer, wool waste

Fish tankage

Furfural residue

Grape pomace

Guano

Hartsalz

Hoof meal

Norn meal

Humus

Kainit

Kelp

Land lime

Lime, nitrate of

Lime nitrogen

Manure, animal

Manure salts

Marl, agricultural

Mussel meat, inedible, dry

Nitrogen fertilizer solution

Oyster shell lime

Peat moss

Peat or peat filler

Phosphate matrix blend

Plant food

Potash, beet or cane residuum

Potash magnesia, sulphate of

Potash, nitrate of

Potash, noibn

Potash, sulphate of

Salts, agricultural

Shrimp hulls

Sludge, sewage

Sugar cake mud

Sylvinite

Tank water, evaporated

Tankage, fertilizer

Tankage, garbage, dry

The inhomogeneity of the fertilizer commodity class means that the conclusions we can draw from the statistics of freight car movements have to be considered in the context of a variety of sources and destinations.

The following data are from the 1% Carload Waybill Sample taken from 1950 through 1960. The domestic commodity flows are shown in this chart:

On a national basis the domestic commodity flow was moderately strong and certainly the frequency of rail shipments was steady throughout the decade. This chart shows the distribution of those carloads among the various AAR mechanical designations:

Shipments in stock, refrigerator, and flat cars numbered 18 throughout this period and have been suppressed from this display for clarity. The freight car types were dominated by box cars, but there was a persistent usage of open top cars, special cars, and tank cars that reflects the diversity of materials in commodity class 539.

Most states shipped fertilizers by rail. This map shows the frequencies and destinations of the shipments from Ohio averaged over the period 1951 through 1953:

Ohio's distribution pattern is fairly typical of the midwestern states. The shipments are mostly regional in distribution and moderately dense. Also a lot of the flows were reciprocal. If I showed the plot for shipments from Georgia for example, we would typically see about the same number of carloads moving from Georgia to Ohio as moved from Ohio to Georgia. In a recent eMail Dan Sweeney brought up this "coal to Newcastle" sort of economic issue, and it is clear that reciprocal shipments exist and also that they are prevalent in heterogenous commodity classes.

So the domestic commodity flow looks like the superposition of about 30 of these regional-scale blobs, each with a different geographic "center of gravity".

The shipments from Canadian sources are not negligible, but they are certainly not dominant. This map shows the frequency and distribution of carloads of fertilizer from Canada averaged over 1951 through 1953:

There's the signature of a fairly strong traffic lane to the west coast states (presumably from sources in B.C. and Alta.), and the geographic scope of the Canadian shipments is national, but the intensity is about a factor of 20 or so smaller than the domestic sources. Canada is sort of analogous to a big state and Canadian fertilizers certainly didn't dominate the U.S. market.

I would say that the statistics suggest that shipments of Canadian potash to consignees in Washington, Oregon, and California were a reasonably frequent occurrence during the 1950s, and if I were modeling this area I certainly would strive to portray this commodity flow. But for the rest of the U.S. the arrival of a Canadian box car loaded with potash would probably be a lot more of a curiosity.

Charles Hostetler

Goshen, Ind.

↧

A Soo TOFC Commodity Flow

January 14, 2014, 5:12 pm

≫ Next: A Prototype Waybill - 38

≪ Previous: Canadian Rail Flows of Fertilizer Materials

I recently got an eMail from Bob Sterner regarding an interesting TOFC commodity flow on the Soo Line:

"Here's an unusual situation. According to an article in The Soo, in 1959 (my model year) the Soo began service whereby steel was loaded onto flat bed truck trailers and hauled via piggyback flats from "the dock" in Duluth to Whirlpool in St. Paul. Since I model St. Paul I was happy to hear this, and I pretty quickly built some truck trailers and kitbashed to go along with some kitbashed piggyback flats I built some time ago (and published an article about, also in The Soo).

I put "the dock" in quotes above because I don't know if that refers to the regular dock at the freight house or if it refers to something maritime.

I am using prototype-inspired waybills on my layout so I'd like to try to get this right to go along with the models. So, I'm wondering a couple of things here.

1. Would steel on trucks be billed differently because of the trucks? Or would the waybills just say something about the steel itself?

2. Would a shipment say from a steel supplier in the lower Great Lakes that went first by ship and then by rail (perched on a truck) be billed all the way from the downlake shipper, or is it more likely the bill would just cover the rail segment?"

This commodity flow started in 1959, a bit after my era, but I thought it was a good example of how the different situations of individual rail carriers affected the implementation of TOFC traffic in the late 1950s. In a previous post (http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/11/tofc-traffic-some-preliminary-thoughts.html) I had discussed this concept of the variability in TOFC implementation as an interesting time marker that helps establish the time frame behind one's layout. Bob is using this concept with the Soo on his St. Paul layout based in 1959, and has kindly agreed to collaborate with me on this post.

You may recall from the previous TOFC post that in 1957 the CNW was moving past the carrier-owned trailers on carrier-owned flat cars on home routes. It had established joint rates with other carriers (i.e., was shipping and receiving interline TOFC traffic) and was a member of Trailer Train. The Soo, for a variety of reasons, was several years behind the CNW's implementation. In 1959, the TOFC steel shipments from Duluth to St. Paul on the Soo were Soo-owned (or possibly leased) trailers on Soo-owned flat cars. At this time the Soo had not established any interline rates, and so the TOFC traffic was entirely on its own rails.

Was Domestic Interlake Traffic Part of this Commodity Flow?

Bob offered the suggestion that the steel was produced on the lower Great Lakes (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania) and shipped via lake boat to the dock in Duluth. My immediate reaction was that this wasn't very likely because of the demise of break-bulk shipping on the Great Lakes in the 1950s. However, while Bob was doing some more research on the freight cars involved in the shipment I did some more research on the Great Lakes fleet and learned about the steel self-unloaders. These were also called crane boats. They typically were smaller and older than the bulk carriers (and there are some excellent smaller boats that would make good water front models). With two (or more) cranes mounted above the deck they were ideally suited to transport iron, steel, and scrap.

There were 14 steel self-unloaders on the Great Lakes in 1959 (The Ship Masters Association Directory, 1959 edition):

Name	Year Blt.	Owner or Manager
Buckeye	1900	Columbia Transportation Corp., Cleveland Ohio
Detroit Edison	1954	Boland & Cornelius, Buffalo N.Y.
Harry T. Ewig	1902	Columbia Transportation Corp., Cleveland Ohio
Clifford F. Hood	1902	U.S. Steel Co., Cleveland Ohio
The Inland	1926	Inland Steel Co., Cleveland Ohio
Ironwood	1902	Nicholson Transit Co., River Rouge Mich.
Adrian Iselin	1914	Nicholson Transit Co., River Rouge Mich.
O.S. McFarland	1903	Columbia Transportation Corp., Cleveland Ohio
Manzzutti	1903	Yankcanuck Transportation Co., Sault Ste. Marie Ont.
G.G. Post	1902	Columbia Transportation Corp., Cleveland Ohio
Steel King	1897	Nicholson Transit Co., River Rouge Mich.
Sylvania	1958	The Tomlinson Fleet, Cleveland Ohio
Venus	1901	Boland & Cornelius, Buffalo N.Y.
Joseph S. Young	?	Boland & Cornelius, Buffalo N.Y.

This photo of the G.G. Post shows a typical steel self-unloader:

The G.G. Post was 353 feet in length, 48 feet at the beam, and carried two cranes with a 65-foot reach. The cranes had electromagnets for scrap and pig iron, and ordinary hooks for structural steel in bundles.

There's also good picture of the Manzzutti unloading pig iron at the Port of Milwaukee that shows the cranes in operation at http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/MilwWaterwa/id/1010/rec/33. The Manzzutti was 246 feet long, 41 feet at the beam, and had a diesel-powered crane with a 60-foot reach.

One of my favorite photos includes the Harry T. Ewig at Transit Shed 1 in the Port of Milwaukee prior to her conversion to a steel self-unloader (http://content.mpl.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/MilwWaterwa/id/1023/rec/14). A good photo of the same boat after conversion is at http://www.flickr.com/photos/jowo/5585074906/in/set-1558003.

The Soo magazine had an article in the Winter, 2009 issue on the Duluth 10th Ave. W freight house, which is shared with the WC. It shows photos of ships docked at the facility. One of these was the crane-equipped Elba. The Elba isn't included in the Steel Self-Unloader section in the 1959 Directory, but is included in the general registry with the notation that the boat was equipped with "Steel & Scrap Cranes". The Elba was 420 feet long, 52 feet at the beam, built in 1907, and was operated by Boland & Cornelius in Buffalo N. Y. Another ship photographed at the dock was the Sir William Fairbairn. The Sir William Fairbairn was listed in the 1959 Directory as a bulk carrier with no mention of crane equipment. The Sir William Fairbairn was 425 feet long, 46 feet at the beam, built in 1896, and operated in 1959 by the Buckeye Steamship Co. out of Cleveland.

So it is possible that the steel came from Cleveland, Detroit, or Buffalo on one of these boats. In this scenario the steel would have been unloaded at the Soo Freight House in Duluth using the onboard cranes, or possibly at one of the nearby dock facilities and subsequently trucked to the Soo Freight House.

I think it is also possible that the steel was produced in the U.S. Steel (formerly Minnesota Steel Co.) plant in the Morgan Park area just southwest of the Duluth city limits. In the late 1950s this plant was starting to specialize in the production of wire and fencing, but it was struggling to survive and was still producing coil steel. It would have been an ideal candidate for a shipper looking for a good rate and regular service to a customer. In this scenario the trailers could have been loaded at the U.S. Steel plant and driven to the Soo freight station in Duluth.

The Shipper:

In either scenario discussed above, the shipper would have been the Soo agent at Duluth. This view was taken April 5, 1952 and shows the area around the Soo Freight Station in the Duluth harbor (click to enlarge):

The area shaded in blue is the Soo Freight House proper. Note the standard rows of box cars all lined up along the water side of this peninsula. Also note that there are no facilities (shore cranes) for transfer of break-bulk cargo in the vicinity, so a self-unloader would be required. The area shaded in yellow is the National Carloading Corp., a freight forwarder. At the time the photo was taken this facility was servicing two long strings of house cars. In front of the National Carloading Corp. building, shaded in green, is the Soo TOFC ramp. You can see three shorter (approximately 40') flat cars and one trailer.

A couple of miscellaneous notes about the Soo Freight House were unearthed during our research. The aforementioned article in The Soo indicates that the building highlighted in yellow (National Carloading Corp.) was originally the Soo inbound freight house and the building highlighted in blue was originally the Soo outbound freight house. With the decline in LCL traffic, sometime during or before 1954, the Soo either leased or sold the inbound freight house to National Carloading Corp. and consolidated their operations in the former outbound freight house. This type of consolidation also happened in Milwaukee by the way, as several freight forwarders leased space in downtown Milwaukee in one of the C&NW's former freight houses.

The Consignee:

The steel was destined for the Whirlpool Corp. (St. Paul Division) facility in St. Paul, served by the SOO via the CNW (CMO). Here's an aerial photo of the facility taken May 8, 1947, when this was the Seeger Refrigerator Co. prior to its acquisition by Whirlpool:

I've color coded the various areas of the plant according to their functionality as documented in the Sanborn map for the area published in 1946. The areas in light blue are the steel receiving and enameling warehouses. The area shaded in green is where electromechanical parts were received and stored. The area shaded in red is the production/assembly facility, and the area shaded in yellow is for finished product storage and shipping. The facility was set up quite nicely for receiving coil steel by rail, in an indoor covered facility convenient to the production area.

The photo below is of the same area but taken November 11, 1965:

I haven't color coded any areas because it is obvious that the plant had been substantially reconfigured by this time. Note the increase in the number of truck trailers parked in the area and the increased access for vehicular traffic. Shipping and receiving from this plant clearly changed quite a lot over the years. In the March, 1952 C&NW Directory of Industries it is still Seeger Refrigerator Co. and it is served by the CMO (C&NW) and NP. In the 1962 GN Shippers &/or Receivers Guide it is Whirlpool and it is listed as being served by the GN or CMO. Finally, in the OPSIG Industry database a 1971 source lists it as being served by the Soo or CMO. Apparently, trackage rights or other agreements were shifting quite a lot in this part of town. So the shipment of coil steel from Duluth to Whirlpool in Saint Paul on flatbed trailers loaded onto railroad flat cars was probably a relatively short-lived phenomenon which makes a really nice time marker for Bob's 1959 model year setting.

It is also possible that the trailers were unloaded from the flat cars at the Soo's Shoreham TOFC ramp in northern Minneapolis and trucked to Whirlpool. I took a quick look at this area, which I thought was a pretty interesting TOFC setup. This is a really nice view of Shoreham Yard taken November 28, 1966 (high-resolution scan, low angle lighting):

The Soo Freight House on the north side of Shoreham Yard is highlighted in blue, again with the typical rows of box cars along a freight transfer house. To the west (left) of the freight house the TOFC ramp and trailer parking area can be seen. If the rail part of the shipment ended here, then the consignee was probably listed as the Shoreham agent.

Can One Identify This Commodity Flow in the 1959 or 1960 1% Carload Waybill Sample?

In the earlier post I looked at several time series of data and suggested a methodology for determining whether a particular commodity class was a component of the emerging TOFC traffic. The methodology was applied to commodity class 583 (Manufactured Iron and Steel) with the result that, on a national basis, manufactured iron and steel was likely a participant in TOFC traffic growth post-1956. Its quite a different proposition to find a recognizable signal in the state to state data. I looked at the carloads of manufactured iron and steel originating and terminating in Minnesota during the 1950s, and the average number of carloads per year in the sample is about 10, with a standard deviation of about 4. There's no particular temporal trend in the time series that suggests that this particular commodity flow was detected in the 1% sample. If one postulates several TOFC carloads per week, say a couple hundred cars a year, of steel from Duluth to Shoreham, this might show up as 2 carloads in the sample. I include this discussion simply to reinforce the finding that the 1% carload waybill sample is a good place to look for national trends, and to identify typical, frequent commodity flows. But the 1% sample is not a good place to look to find information about lower frequency events; at the layout scale it is much more important to understand local conditions if one wants to develop a good model of commodity flows.

The Cars:

Looking at the Soo listings in the January 1958 and April 1959 ORERs, it appears that there were two types of TOFC flat car carriers (FCs) in the late 1950s. In the January 1958 ORER the Soo rostered 2 FC cars (54315 and 54391) that were 52' 6" IL. These were 50-ton cars. By the time of the April 1959 listing these two cars had been converted to type FMS; equipped with bulkheads for wallboard loading and assigned to Ontario Paper Co. in International Falls Minn. [I think these SOO 53' 6" TOFC FCs were the prototype for Tom Houle's articles "Piggyback Flats - Part 1 and Part 2" in the April and May 2005 Mainline Modeler. He had modeled the car carrying 2 24' Soo trailers.] The second type, and the more numerically important group of the Soo's FCs were the 35 cars in item 54101 to 54259 (odd numbers only, enumerated in note D1). These were 40-ton cars, 40' IL, and 9' 3" IW.

Bob prepared the following description of the prototype using information from The Soo, issues 22-2 and 22-3 along with unpublished data provided by Ken Soroos.

To inaugurate their “Rail-Van” service on March 1, 1955, the Soo converted four 52’6” Pullman Standard 50-ton capacity flats (built in 1939) of welded construction to piggyback service. This service connected several points in Wisconsin to Minneapolis/St. Paul. In 1956 the service was extended to Chicago and additional flat cars in this same series were similarly converted. Their length allowed for the loading of two 25’ trailers. Soo TOFC service was extended to Duluth-Superior in mid-1959. TOFC service on the Soo and elsewhere grew quickly in this time period; by 1961, there were Soo piggyback ramps in fifteen locations. While the number of locations served by TOFC was growing so too was the length of the truck trailers being used. In 1956 35-foot trailers were leased by the Soo for this service and in 1956, 40-foot trailers were acquired. Increased length meant two trailers no longer would fit onto a single 52’6” flat car, so the Soo migrated to loading single truck trailers onto 40-foot flat cars. In the January, 1959 ORER the two remaining 52’6” piggyback flats were still listed (54315 and 54319), but these had been converted to wallboard loading by April, 1959. At the time of the Duluth-Whirlpool St. Paul service discussed here, the Soo was relying on 35 41’5” flat cars from the 54101-54259 (odds) series, rebuilt to TOFC service in 1956-57. These cars had an interesting history, beginning their life as refrigerator cars (!), and rebuilt to flats in 1939. In the later 1950s they received further modifications with the addition of fishbelly side sills. Flatbed truck trailers of 40’ length were acquired in 1959 for the Duluth-Whirlpool service discussed here. These had two axles and were black with white lettering.

Models of the truck trailers and flat cars on Bob's layout were built as follows. Forty-foot flatbed truck trailers are offered by Wiseman Model Services (EBay seller wisemodserv). These kits consist of white metal parts and stripwood. They are re-releases of kits once offered by On-Trac. Two kits were built stock except for adding bulkheads with sheet styrene. Stripwood was stained prior to assembly. Color photos of other Soo trailers from the era show red wheels. Lettering was put together with a combination of N scale Microscale decals for Soo piggyback equipment and individual letters. The flats pictured here were a kitbash project done years ago with the intent to replicate the “look and feel” of Soo piggyback flats (as described in the article I wrote in The Soo 26-3. They are not prototypically correct, differing in overall length and other features. Coil steel loads were purchased from Chooch (N scale) and weathered with artist oils to take away some of the sheen and add some character. The smaller N scale coils help keep the truck trailers from appearing to be overloaded.

This photo was taken by Bob of the model operating on his layout:

I think it is a pretty nice piece of work with a distinctive prototype that sets a really nice time marker.

Money, Mobility, or Something Else?

The flatbed trailers used in this service did not provide any protection from the elements for the coil steel. They were not any easier to load or unload, and there was the added complication of securing the trailers to the flat cars. The flatbed trailers were also much heavier than any dunnage would have been had the steel been simply shipped by flat car. So why was this TOFC traffic, and why were the flatbed trailers acquired for this service?

We haven't been able to answer to this question with documentary evidence, but there are some inferences we might be able to draw from the situation. They revolve around the considerations of money and mobility. And these considerations are somewhat intertwined.

If the steel came from the U.S. Steel plant southwest of Duluth, and if we consider that this facility was served by the DMIR and NP (and that the U.S. Steel plant was not subject to reciprocal switching, necessitating including one of these carriers as the originating line haul carrier), we can see an opportunity for an enterprising Soo traffic manager to take a little business from the competition. By publishing a TOFC tariff with favorable rates, the steel could be loaded at the U.S. Steel plant on the flatbeds, driven to the Soo Freight House, and travel entirely on the Soo to Whirlpool. Favorable rates and the ability to expedite the shipment by controlling it from source to destination may have been useful selling points to the shipper.

It also seems clear that the trailers added no utility at all unless at least one leg of the trip involved transportation by highway. Getting the steel from U.S. Steel to the Soo in Duluth to facilitate the direct routing is an example of transportation by highway at the origin of the shipment. At the destination end, if the trailers were unloaded with the steel at the TOFC facility in Shoreham Yard, this might have allowed delivery to more than one Whirlpool (or associated subsidiary) facility in the Twin City area. It is even possible that a small or portable unloading ramp was constructed at Whirlpool to move trailers from flats.

A Model Waybill

I created this model waybill for the shipment, assuming that the car was shipped from the Soo Freight House in Duluth to the Whirlpool Corp. directly in St. Paul and that the SOO had direct access via the CNW:

The header and footer are from a SOO freight waybill that dates from the late 1950s. I like the rather ornate header, which appears to have been used on the SOO during the entire 1950s (I have seen this header on both old- and new-style SOO waybills). For this shipment, which probably had its own special tariff, I guessed that Shipper's Load and Count was the most likely way that the revenue was determined. I added a Western Weight and Inspection Bureau stamp that was taken from a SOO waybill.

Charles Hostetler and Bob Sterner

↧

A Prototype Waybill - 38

January 16, 2014, 5:14 pm

≪ Previous: A Soo TOFC Commodity Flow

Tonight's waybill from the August 29th train is for a tank car load of gasoline, shipped from a bulk terminal facility in Green Bay to a local distributor in Algoma. Andy Laurent provided the scan from the Ahnapee & Western waybill collection:

This waybill is a near duplicate of the subject of the very first post in this series, written by Andy and I back in October of 2012 (http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-detailed-look-at-prototype-waybill-1.html).

In fact, there are a number of related waybills in the A&W collection that have been documented to date:

Row	Date	MK	No	Content	Gals	Dest
12	06-29	UTLX	5689	Gasoline	10285	Algoma
22	07-02	UTLX	71854	Gasoline	8084	Forestville
40	07-05	UTLX	36190	Gasoline	10201	Forestville
42	07-05	UTLX	22877	Gasoline	8156	Algoma
73	07-11	UTLX	10807	Gasoline	10084	Forestville
80	07-11	UTLX	5689	Gasoline	10285	Algoma
81	07-11	UTLX	72275	Fuel Oil	8085	Algoma
108	07-18	UTLX	10939	Gasoline	10090	Forestville
130	07-20	UTLX	39710	Gasoline	10144	Algoma
154	07-25	UTLX	5689	Gasoline	10285	Forestville
159	07-25	UTLX	24066	Fuel Oil	10071	Algoma
191	07-27	UTLX	39734	Gasoline	10166	Algoma
196	08-01	UTLX	36190	Gasoline	10201	Forestville
218	08-03	UTLX	39189	Fuel Oil	10177	Algoma
219	08-03	UTLX	40164	Gasoline	10164	Algoma
226	08-06	UTLX	9931	Gasoline	10197	Forestville
256	08-13	UTLX	39189	Gasoline	10177	Forestville
273	08-15	UTLX	39710	Gasoline	10144	Algoma
280	08-17	UTLX	35523	Gasoline	10213	Forestville
305	08-22	UTLX	74172	Fuel Oil	8138	Forestville
309	08-22	UTLX	10939	Gasoline	10090	Algoma
321	08-24	UTLX	36190	Gasoline	10201	Forestville
PWB38	08-29	UTLX	32399	Gasoline	10204	Algoma

With the exception of the last entry, the column labeled row refers to the row number in the table that Andy prepared for the table on the GBW page that can be found at http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills.htm. The last entry (PWB38) refers to the 38th post in the Prototype Waybill series (this post). This table is sorted by date (all dates are from 1962) and documents the inbound shipments to the A&W over a two-month period.

There are 23 total inbound shipments to two distributors. Four of these shipments (about 15%) were fuel oil and the remainder were gasoline. All of the tank cars were marked UTLX and originated at the Standard Oil bulk terminal in Green Bay (shown in the post referenced above). A mixture of 8K gal. and 10K gal. cars were used, and a quick perusal of the roster shows that several cars appeared more than once on the A&W during this time.

I created this table for deliveries to Algoma only:

Date	Content	Gals	Dest	Day	Lag
06-29	Gasoline	10285	Algoma	Friday	-
07-05	Gasoline	8156	Algoma	Saturday	7
07-11	Fuel Oil	8085	Algoma	Friday	-
07-11	Gasoline	10285	Algoma	Friday	6
07-20	Gasoline	10144	Algoma	Sunday	9
07-25	Fuel Oil	10071	Algoma	Friday	14
07-27	Gasoline	10166	Algoma	Sunday	7
08-03	Fuel Oil	10177	Algoma	Sunday	9
08-03	Gasoline	10164	Algoma	Sunday	7
08-15	Gasoline	10144	Algoma	Friday	12
08-22	Gasoline	10090	Algoma	Friday	7
08-29	Gasoline	10204	Algoma	Friday	7

The column labeled day shows the day of the week that the shipment was stamped received by the A&W agent in Sturgeon Bay. These tended to be on Fridays and Sundays. I also calculated the lag between shipments of the same commodity (fuel oil or gasoline) and that is tabulated in the last column. The gasoline shipments tended to arrive 7 days apart, while the fuel oil deliveries were separated by lags of 16 and 9 days. This table suggests how one could build a demand table for regulating inbound shipments.

This is the corresponding table for the Forestville distributor:

Date	Content	Gals	Dest	Day	Lag
07-02	Gasoline	8084	Forestville	Monday	-
07-05	Gasoline	10201	Forestville	Saturday	3
07-11	Gasoline	10084	Forestville	Friday	6
07-18	Gasoline	10090	Forestville	Friday	7
07-25	Gasoline	10285	Forestville	Friday	7
08-01	Gasoline	10201	Forestville	Friday	7
08-06	Gasoline	10197	Forestville	Wednesday	5
08-13	Gasoline	10177	Forestville	Wednesday	7
08-17	Gasoline	10213	Forestville	Sunday	4
08-22	Fuel Oil	8138	Forestville	Friday	-
08-24	Gasoline	10201	Forestville	Sunday	7

There weren't enough deliveries of fuel oil to calculate lags, but for gasoline the shipments seemed to arrive mostly on Fridays, with lags close to seven days.

This table shows a small slice of UTLX's tank car fleet associated with the Green Bay bulk terminal:

		Page 616
Mk	No	Item	#Start	#End	Note	MD	Cars	Capy (lbs)	Capy (gals)
UTLX	5689	1	10	12749		TM	5767	80,000	10,285
UTLX	9931	1	10	12749		TM	5767	80,000	10,197
UTLX	10807	2	10	12749	D1	TM	163	100,000	10,084
UTLX	10939	2	10	12749	D1	TM	163	100,000	10,090
UTLX	22877	31	18000	22999		TM	1849	80,000	8,156
UTLX	24066	42	24000	24999		TM	765	100,000	10,071
UTLX	32399	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,204
UTLX	35523	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,213
UTLX	36190	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,201
UTLX	39189	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,177
UTLX	39710	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,144
UTLX	39734	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,166
UTLX	40164	51	25800	42999		TM	5800	100,000	10,164
UTLX	71854	116	71000	79999		TM	4523	80,000	8,084
UTLX	72275	116	71000	79999		TM	4523	80,000	8,085
UTLX	74172	116	71000	79999		TM	4523	80,000	8,138

There are 16 individual cars for the 23 shipments, and several cars made two or three trips during the two-month period. The ORER data are from the January 1958 edition (item number, start number, end number, applicable notes, AAR Mechanical Designation, number of cars, and capacity in pounds. The members of this sample of the UTLX fleet are dominated by 10K UTCC X-3 10K cars, although GATC-built and ACF-built cars were probably also in the sample (UTXL 7100 to 79999; see discussion in http://cnwmodeling.blogspot.com/2013/12/a-prototype-waybill-35.html).

As we progress further into the fall trains I'll be interested in observing whether the ratio of gasoline to fuel oil shipments changes, as well as the overall frequency of shipments.

Charles Hostetler and Andy Laurent

↧