The waybills I use on my own layout were designed and created by scanning, then cutting down, a prototype waybill (this approach works because every railroad used the standard AAR form, or a near-exact copy, so any prototype waybill from close to the right era is a suitable original). I’m often asked, what type face did I use? I didn’t need to choose one; I use the actual scanned AAR form lettering.
I described how I did this cutting down in an article in Model Railroad Hobbyist or MRH; that article appeared in the issue for May 2012, and issues of MRH from that era are available to read on-line or download, for free, at their website, www.mrhmag.com .
As I described in that article, I began with an actual Pennsylvania Railroad waybill that I happened to have, shown below. Absent the pin-feed edges, it’s 8.5 x 11 inches in size. Note that very few of the boxes contain anything filled out (you can click to enlarge). This was common.
A great deal of the space on this document is for things we do not utilize in model railroading, so I simply discarded all the excess, shown below in pink.
But note that I was removing a great deal of material that gives a prototype waybill its distinctive appearance, because I was aiming at a fairly small document for model use, either 2.5 x 3.5 inches for my layout, or 2 x 4 inches to substitute for four-cycle waybills on Otis McGee’s layout. One of my own examples is shown below. It’s quite workable but doesn’t look a great deal like the original, shown at the top of this post; there just isn’t room (remember, it’s 2.5 x 3.5 inches).
There isn’t even room to include the Pennsy keystone emblem of the original, which I regretted.
I recently had the opportunity to revisit this process and entirely re-think how to make a useful model waybill. My friend Paul Weiss (and helpers!) is well along with constructing a large layout that models the Central Vermont Railway across Connecticut. He sees no reason to make waybills as small as what I use, and thought a good compromise with the 8.5 x 11-inch original would be 5 x 7 inches. Switch crews can carry these on clipboards when working local freight, or, if folded in half lengthwise, in a pocket.
This much larger size was actually a liberating idea (note that it is four times the area of my own waybill form). I went back to the original PRR waybill scan shown at the top of this post, and re-cut the removals. After a first run-through, I had arrived at what you see below, not yet ready to be 5 x 7 inches nor final in content, but heading in the right direction.
Note that I have not yet removed most of the original typed entries. I now had to carefully consider what finally to remove or re-arrange. This went quickly, and I drew upon the many waybill railroad-name headers that I have collected to start making up some final 5 x 7-inch bills. Here is an example, incidentally an Erie bill, chosen in part to show that I now have space to include the railroad emblem for those roads that did so:
I experimented further by filling out a few bills for Paul to look at. Here is one example, directed to one of the industries on his layout:
This has been very interesting and enjoyable, to go back to the foundation of our model waybills and re-think what we can include. I have long been envious of those using larger model waybills (especially in the Chicago area, Dan Holbrook, Frank Hodina, Bob Hanmer and others), so I welcomed the chance to explore them myself, and to try once again to get a document that looks closer to the prototype that many of us are striving to represent.
Tony Thompson
Hi Tony, just an idea - use 5.5"x8.5" as that entails a simple cutting of a standard 8.5"x11" sheet in half. Of course you would have to rotate the way bills 90 degrees before printing.
ReplyDeleteYou're quite right, but the layout owner has chosen 5 x 7 inches. Since paper this size is available, and modern laser printers can print on it, we are going that route.
DeleteTony Thompson
Tony, I love the waybill posts. FYI B&A routings were supposed to use the marks NYC (B) instead of B&A. Using my 1947 Lines East routing guide, the by-the-book preferred routing looks like it would be NYC (W)-Gardenville-NYC (E)-Selkirk Jct. or Rennselaer-NYC (B)-Palmer-CV (you'd need a Lines West routing guide to be sure). There were two alternate routes, one via the Michigan Central [NYC (M)] and one via the Big 4 [NYC (C)] between Cleveland and Danville, IL. I doubt many shippers filled out the intercompany junctions, but they were supposed to be there. The few 1960s revenue waybills I have show pretty good use of NYC (B) via Selkirk, but the rest was usually just NYC or NYC (E). What a paperwork nightmare for the NYC.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Mike. I know that many railroads has internal designations like this, but have few such resources myself. I was told once that agents in small towns, and small shippers, often made mistakes in routing, and the waybill would then be corrected somewhere en route.
ReplyDeleteThe waybill I showed, being a NYC bill, probably would have had correct NYC symbol used.
The waybill was supposed to show interline transfer points, as you point out. I have seen relatively few waybills without them, usually ones for short journeys.
Tony Thompson
Whoops, I meant "intracompany" junctions...although sometimes the other ones got left out too.
ReplyDelete