Modeling a PFE fleet

I have posted several times about this topic, and over the years have given a number of talks about it, but continue to get questions and comments on the subject. As the principal author of the 464-page PFE book (Thompson, Church and Jones, Pacific Fruit Express, 2nd edition, Signature Press, 2000), I do have resources to try and answer questions like this. And of course the book remains your primary source of information.

Although I personally model 1953, I realize that many people model other parts of the PFE era, so in the material below, will try to cover a range of years. But almost any choice of era will lead to interesting photos, like the one below (Extra 4015 East, Green River, Wyo., Sept. 3, 1955: John E Shaw photo). Which cars are these? Or to rephrase: what mix of cars should I have? And perhaps strikingly, what mix of clean and variously dirty cars should I have?

Following PFE’s dramatic inception in 1906, when E.H. Harriman ordered 6600 new refrigerator cars to create the first PFE car fleet, cars continued to be of wood-sheathed construction, including wood board roofs, until 1920. 

In that year, outside metal roofs became standard for new and rebuilt car construction, but car bodies remained wood-framed and wood-sheathed. The first all-steel cars were built in 1936. But because of the immense number of wood cars in existence in 1936, the steel cars remained a relatively small fraction of the fleet until the middle 1950s. 

As additional classes of steel cars were built, the fleet slowly began to be dominated by cars of that type, though as late as 1960, wood-sheathed cars (by now all rebuilds) remained 60 percent of the fleet. The first mechanical reefers owned by PFE were built in 1953, but even by 1962, they ware only 9 percent of the fleet. But this rose quickly as ice cars were scrapped, and by 1970 mechanical cars were 64 percent of the fleet. All these relative fleet characteristics are well documented in the PFE book.

For a single example of the kind of information in that book, below is a chart made by Dick Harley and contributed to the book (pages 440 and 441). It shows graphically and clearly the evolution of the PFE wood-car fleet over time, including rebuilding. (You can click on the image to enlarge it if you wish.) 

 For modelers of any part of North America, the size of PFE’s fleet is worth pointing out. For quite a few years, it hovered just under 40,000 cars, bigger than most railroads’ entire fleet, as you see below. This graph also shows how many cars were washed every year, and you can see it’s a significant fraction of the fleet each year, except in the depth of the Depression and during World War II, until washing was discontinued in the early 1950s. 

 I show this graph because it has a consequence for car appearance. You can’t weather PFE cars before the 1950s just on the age of the paint scheme, because of this washing. For more about washing and all that, see my earlier post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/11/appearance-of-pfe-reefers-part-3.html . 

I have had modelers ask me about PFE underframes. After the first car classes with a heavy and complex underframe, PFE changed to the single-beam Bettendorf design, which they continued to use into the middle 1920s. They then changed to what they called a “built-up” underframe, which was assembled from plate and angles. 

Both are shown below (you can click to enlarge if you wish). The section at right is labeled as a “40-ton” underframe, but thousands of 30-ton cars received this kind of design also, just with a little lighter section. All cars with either underframe were wood-sheathed cars. 

I guess my point is that there are considerable resources to answer questions about the prototype and, by implication, many modeling issues too. But I am always available, via this blog or privately, to try and answer questions.

Tony Thompson

Handout for “The Role of the Agent”

This is the on-line handout for a clinic entitled “The Role of the Agent.” The purpose is to provide documentation of the various published items shown in the talk, along with links to a number of blog posts which cover some points in the talk in much more detail. They are grouped below by topic area. 

My point in the clinic was to indicate that many of us enjoy trying to operate model railroads in a prototypical manner, as in the photo below (Seth Neumann at left, and Steve Van Meter, switching at Ballard on my layout). I attempted to indicate how we can go about such imitation of the prototype, choosing the specific railroad that I model, the Southern Pacific.

Print Publications

Armstrong, John H., The Railroad – What It Is, What It Does (Chapter 8, Railroad Operations), Simmons-Boardman Publishing, Omaha, 1982. [there are several subsequent editions with updates; the original is closest in time to the era I model] 

Benezra, Steve, and Phil Monat, editors, A Compendium of Model Railroad Operations, Operations Special Interest Group, Downington, PA, 2017.

Coughlin, E.W., Freight Car Distribution and Handling in the United States, Car Service Division, Association of American Railroads, Washington, 1956.

Grant, H. Roger, The Station Agent and the American Railroad Experience, Indiana University Press, Bloomington, 2022. 

Koester, Tony, “In search of the perfect waybill,” Model Railroader, February 2012, p. 82.

Thompson, Anthony, “Prototypical waybills for car card operation,” Railroad Model Craftsman, December 2009, pp. 71–77.  

Thompson, Tony, “Getting Real: A More Prototypical Waybill for Model Railroads,” Model Railroad Hobbyist, pp. 31–46, May 2012. 

Thompson, Tony, ”Getting Real: Operating with Prototypical Waybills,” Model Railroad Hobbyist, January 2018.  

Thompson, Tony, “Modeling Traffic on a Layout,” Model Railroad Hobbyist, September 2021.  

SP Circular 39-1, “Instructions to Station Agents”

Thompson, Tony, “SP’s Instructions to Station Agents,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/11/sps-instructions-to-station-agents-part.html

Thompson, Tony, “SP’s Instructions to Station Agents, Part 2,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/11/sps-instruction-to-station-agents-part-2.html

Thompson, Tony, “SP’s Instructions to Station Agents, Part 3,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/12/sps-instructions-to-station-agents-part.html

Thompson, Tony, “SP’s Instructions to Station Agents, Part 4,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/12/sps-instructions-to-station-agents-part_10.html

Thompson, Tony, “SP’s Instructions to Station Agents, Part 5,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2016/12/sps-instructions-to-station-agents-part_25.html

Learning from Circular 39-1

Thompson, Tony, “Waybills, Part 88: Temporary Waybills,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2021/08/waybills-part-88-temporary-waybills.html

Thompson, Tony, “Waybills, Part 90: SP Form 704,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2021/09/waybills-part-90-sp-form-704.html

Bill Boxes

Thompson, Tony, “Bill Box,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/03/bill-box.html 

Thompson, Tony, “Modeling Bill Boxes,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/05/model-bill-boxes.html 

Salamon, Dave, N-Scale Magazine, issue for September-October 2017. 

Other Points

Thompson, Tony, “Southern Pacific’s Circular 4,” https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2025/12/southern-pacifics-circular-4.html  

Thompson, Tony, “Waybills, Part 39: SP Typography,”  https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2015/04/waybills-part-39-sp-typography.html

With the help of these and many other publications out there, we can hope to capture the spirit of moments like the one below, with the C&NW agent (right) at Brookings, South Dakota, exchanging a roll of waybills with the conductor on the caboose in a light snow (H.R. Grant collection, 1940).  

Tony Thompson 

Kit appreciation: Rocket Express box car

I have done several “kit appreciation” posts before, and this post is to add another one. The model I am writing about today is a resin kit from Rocket Express (specializing, as the name suggests, in Rock Island equipment). The car modeled, with kit #RI-1, is a 40-foot end-door automobile car, that is, a double-door box car. (For an example of such an appreciation post, see: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2013/09/homage-to-two-great-resin-kits.html .)  

The prototype modeled is a group of 1000 double-door cars built by the Rock Island in 1930. The first 650 cars (RI 159250–159899) had solid ends, while the second 350 cars (RI 160250–160599) had end doors. By 1952, near my modeling era, these groups still contained, respectively, 531 and 333 cars, a considerable majority of the original build. Here is a builder photo from the kit directions. 

The car kit has separate sides and ends and roof (no one-piece body here). The first step in construction is to assemble the body box, with some adjustments so everything fits snugly. Next the floor and underframe parts are added. Once all those components are assembled, the various detail parts are added in the usual way, Some areas have centering holes for the drilling of grab-iron holes.

The prototype cars had black roofs, so this is a two-color paint job. The decals are quite nice, and though the fitting of decal lettering around the posts and braces of a single-sheathed car is a little tedious, I’ve always found it an interesting challenge, and satisfying when it comes out right. For me, the key is patience, and only working as long as mental calm prevails.You can always come back to the job.

The car was weathered somewhat lightly to reflect a relatively recent repaint, then fresh paint blocks were added with decal film for placement of new reweigh and repack decals. I felt like this was a really nice project, and I always enjoy single-sheathed cars like this in which the angles of the side braces differ. Below is a view of the B end of the car, with its fixed Dreadnaught end.

Here is the other end. It is in some ways more interesting, with the end doors. Note how the running board does not extend above the raised frame of the end. 

In use on the layout, I have moved the car with a variety of cargoes. But we know from numerous Southern Pacific documents that discovery of empty double-door box cars on SP rails usually got them sent to lumber-producing areas, since loading such cars with longer lengths of timber was easier. Here is one example of this kind of waybill: 

I enjoy this car, as mentioned above, for its appearance, but also of course for the loads it can move. It’s always a welcome part of an operating session.

Tony Thompson 

My first layout

I was recently browsing through some old snapshots, and came across a group that I photographed on my first layout. That was when I lived at my parents’ home in Glendale, CA. It was simply the Model Railroader annual layout project, the Evergreen Central, published in the November and December 1953 issues. (I should mention that in an earlier post I mis-identified it as the previous year’s project, the Pine Tree Central. That error was in this post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2018/09/thoughts-on-operation.html .)

Like most MR projects in those days, it was a very simple track plan, and very complete directions were provided for building it, down to which size wood screws and how many, how many feet of hookup wire, and what size can of walnut stain. They recommended Tru-Scale plain roadbed and Atlas track, but influenced by my days as a teen member at the Glendale Model Railroad Club, I used the Tru-Scale roadbed with milled ties. I laid the rail by hand, using Varney spikes. Below you can see some of my pencil notations on the plan, for a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood.

When built, my layout looked just like the photos in MR. An overhead view is shown below, photographed in our backyard, though the layout lived in the garage.   

I built a small cabinet for layout power sections, complete with track diagram, and a holder for the Scintilla power pack, as you see at right.

I never got past this stage, except for adding some track. But I did run trains, sometimes pretty long ones (probably my entire car roster at the time), behind  a Mantua Pacific. I also had a Model Die Casting 0-6-0 for switching.  

I collected some buildings, a Suydam ice house and deck and what I think was also a Suydam cardstock warehouse building, and added a second siding, as you can see here. The loco is the 0-6-0.

The following month, MR had a cover story on scenery for this layout, but I never did any of that part of the project, being intimidated about creating scenery.

This was fun, and of course instructive in learning a little about layouts, wiring, and so on. My dad helped me build a system of ropes and pulleys so the layout could be hoisted above the family car in the garage, and lowered down onto sawhorses when I wanted to operate. But of course it was only a few years until high school and. . . you know, cars, girls, sports . . . and the layout was no more. But I enjoyed doing as much as I did.

Tony Thompson 

Building a Yarmouth Model Works kit

I recently agreed to build a Yarmouth Model Works kit for a friend, perhaps a natural move for a self-confessed “freight car guy” (for background on that, consult this post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2019/10/whats-freight-car-guy.html ), but I will confess there was drinking involved. At any rate, he sent me the kit, and I started work on it. More on that in a moment. 

Meanwhile, Pierre Oliver, the proprietor of Yarmouth, decided to call it quits, partly over the tensions and business complexities between the United States and Canada. This is a great loss to the hobby (though some hold out hope that Pierre may return some day when things are quieter), and I am very much among those who regret the loss of not only some outstanding products, but the vision of a creative craftsman’s mind and hands.

Back to the kit. It models one of the 50-foot single-sheathed box cars that Great Northern rebuilt in 1953 and 1954 into all-steel cars with either single or double doors. This kit, Yarmouth #140, is for a single-door car. Below is a prototype photo from the Staffan Ehnbom collection of one of these cars, in the paint scheme I will be doing

Here are the one-piece body and the one-piece floor and underframe, with a pair of 5/8-11 steel nuts glued on top of the floor with canopy glue to provide weight.

Once the underframe and floor have been carefully filed to fit into the car body, they can be glued together. I used canopy glue. Then the holes for coupler box and bolster screws are tapped for 2-56 screws.

The first set of detailing tasks is to build the underframe. It is abundantly clear from the kit instructions that this kit in not intended for the inexperienced, as only rather general guidance is provided for most steps. Of course, this should be “red meat” for a freight car guy. Or so I hoped. 

Because of the deep center sill that survived from the single-sheathed predecessor car, most brake rigging and piping would not be visible from the side of the car. Accordingly, I chose to install only the levers and rigging, along with brake equipment. As you can see below, I also installed coupler boxes for the Kadee couplers to come.

Next, I began to address the body detailing. I had already agreed with the kit owner that I could omit building the beautiful but fussy and tedious Yarmouth ladders, so I needed to add suitable seven-rung ladders. I have a major stash of such freight car parts, inherited from Richard Hendrickson, so chose some Precision Scale ladders that could be cut to length.

Here they are installed, of course with rungs aligned around the car corner, attached with canopy glue, my preferred adhesive now for detail parts, because of its tenacity.  Stand-offs were added on the side of the ladder away from the end ribs. The ladders may appear abnormally far apart, because of the notch where the new sides meet the old corrugated ends. This was common when originally single-sheathed cars were rebuilt this way.

 I will continue my description of this project in a future post. It’s an interesting car and I look forward to completing it.

 Tony Thompson 

A look back at the Lompoc & Cuyama

When my layout was first built, it was in my basement in Pittsburgh, PA. I imagined it as a short line, running from the Southern Pacific main line which runs along the coast, at a real place called Jalama, then crossing the coastal hills to the Santa Ynez Valley and the towns of Ballard and Los Olivos. I also conceived an upper deck over one side of the layout, to have a bit of mountain climbing to reach Cuyama. 

That layout was among the ones featured for the 1990 NMRA National convention in Pittsburgh, and an article I wrote about it made the cover of the June 1990 Railroad Model Craftsman (article on pages 64–69). That cover is shown below, comprising a photo of the SP main line on the layout. Note that the cover artist added the inverted-kite shape of the L&C logo.

After careful study of USGS topo maps, I figured out a possible rail line from the SP junction to Los Olivos, then a line via Foxen Canyon to a junction with the Santa Maria Valley Railroad at Sisquoc, then up La Brea Creek Canyon and over the summit of the Sierra Madre range to Cuyama. (The railroad was imagined as intending to continue on eastward to Bakersfield, but never got that far.) By my modeling era, the line had been cu back to Alpine, where two mines were served. 

The track arrangement as I envisioned it is shown below. It was “E”-shaped, in a 16 x 19-ft. room. As noted on the drawing, Los Olivos  and Alpine never got built, beyond a track board and a single length of track, but I did built the upper level area at Piedras Blancas, with track leaving the L&C main line at Ajax Junction. 

Scenes along the layout in those days have been  shown at various times (you can use “L&C” as the search term in the search box at the top right of this post). But I wanted to show a few others that I enjoy. Here, for example, is SP Consolidation 2763 switching at San Luis Obispo. The upper level trackage at Piedras Blancas lies at upper right. 

I often photographed trains at what was then Jalama (now re-named Shumala with a re-purposing of the layout as an SP branch line). Here, for example, is a train departing for Ballard, with L&C caboose 54 on the rear end. Some will recognize this as a brass model of a Yosemite Valley caboose; for a somewhat  amusing detail about these cars, see this post: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2012/08/whimsy.html ). 

Just ahead of the caboose is an L&C box car, also with the inverted-kite logo. The double-sheathed wood box car, L&C 194, was scratchbuilt.

During those days, I built a lot of that layout (though there was certainly a bunch more to do), and the peninsula in the middle of the “E” shape became the core of my present layout. But occasionally I still think fondly about the short line I once modeled.

Tony Thompson 

Waybills, Part 127: more prototype bills

This post is to discuss several prototype waybills and their contents. I think that all have interesting features that are worth presenting. If you would like to examine any details of these bills, any of them can be enlarged by clicking on the image. 

l’ll begin with a Pennsylvania Railroad bill from the late days before Penn Central. The bill is to move a product of the Euclid Division of GMC from the plant at Hudson, Ohio, to Cobusco Inc. at Denver, Colorado. The routing shows PRR to Effner, Indiana, just at the Illinois border due west of Logansport, then via TP&W across Illinois to Lomax on the Santa Fe, just a few miles east of Fort Madison, then Santa Fe to Denver. 

The car is MP 9961, a plain (type FM) steel 60-foot flat car. The load is one tractor NBN (or NOIBN, that is, Not Otherwise Identified By Name), weighing over 47,000 pounds, plus seven other parts and two boxes of parts, adding about 8000 pounds. A special note is added about the fact that a nitrogen compressed gas cylinder is on the load too. Note that the original rate typed on the waybill has been corrected, as was the freight charge.

Another interesting example is of a waybill filled out incorrectly. It’s a Norfolk & Western waybill, moving an empty covered hopper from Ironton, Ohio to Oregon, Illinois, a well-known location for sand shipping and thus presumably for loading of the car, CB&Q 180854. But the waybill’s original routing showing it to exchanged from N&W at Chicago to the C&NW. A hand-written note observes that Oregon, IL is not on the C&NW; then another note points out that Oregon is on the CB&Q, and modifies the routing exchange partner as CB&Q.  

One may also find it amusing to follow the various dates, from the waybill’s original date of February 25, through the last of the eight date stamps, Burlington’s March 15 stamp, just to move an empty car.

Another  example is a very heavy load,  a single piece of rolling mill machinery, weighing 299,000 pounds, along with 4800 pounds of blocking. It was shipped by United Engineering & Foundry in Youngstown, Ohio, to Inland Steel’s plant at East Chicago, via interchange at Hobart, Indiana, onto the the EJ&E. The car was PRR 470243, a 72-foot depressed center flat car of 300,000 pounds nominal capacity. (The load limit would be significantly higher.)  

This bill was subject to later correction in the rate, with an additional payment of $60.36 added to the original bill of $3832.86. A further billing was performed for demurrage, as the car was spotted at United Engineering & Foundry on December 20, and not picked up with its load u;til December 29. That demurrage amounted to $132.48.

Lastly, I wanted to show a B&O analog to the Pennsylvania waybill that I used at the foundation of my own model waybills. (You can see that PRR bill at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/06/waybills-part-69-another-approach.html .) Below is exactly the same load (steel scrap), now coming from Brunswick, MD to  its destination (Deitch & Co. in Sharpsburg, PA), but here loaded in a B&O gondolas 261589, a 70-ton, 52-ft, 6-in. gondola with drop ends and steel floor.

Although it isn’t noted here, loads of scrap often carry the additional notation, RMPO, which means Remelting Purposes Only. That PRR bill mentioned above does have such a notation.

I continue to find prototype waybills interesting and informative, and of the many, many millions issued over the years, I wish we had more to look at!

Tony Thompson