Car Service Rules

I’m not an expert on the Car Service Rules of the AAR, but have been asked about the main features often enough that I thought a summary might be useful here.
     These rules were adopted and modified over the years by a process of consensus among the member railroads of the AAR (and the ARA prior to 1934), through the committee process of the associations. The primary purpose of the rules was to increase efficiency in utilization of the national freight car fleet. The core idea is simple: reduce the amount of miles run by freight cars during which the cars are empty.
     The simplest way for a railroad to handle the freight cars of all other railroads (called “foreign” cars) would be for the road to return them, when made empty, to the owning road, while loading its own cars exclusively. This means, nationwide, that empty miles for every car would be equal to loaded miles, because every other railroad would be loading its shipments in its own cars and getting them back empty. But since many cars are functionally equivalent, such as general-purpose box cars, why not load that fresh empty and send it homeward, but loaded? This obviously reduces empty mileage considerably, and improves utilization. If Road A loads a car to Road B, and B then loads the same car back to A, there is no empty mileage at all. Even if the car only moves, say, halfway homeward with a load, the ratio of loaded to empty miles is improved.
     There was eventually an extensive set of rules, with detailed interpretations, special exceptions, and so forth, to try and implement the simple-sounding idea of loading foreign empty cars in the homeward direction. But here is a compact summary, developed by the AAR and reproduced in some issues of the Official Railway Equipment Register. The rules are listed in order of preference (click to enlarge).

The Districts referred to were defined in a map, the details of which changed from time to time, but here is the map for 1954.

Some of the “home district” definitions may seem odd, but these depended on the presence of major junctions or interchange points, not the primary operating areas of individual railroads.
     The intent of the rules is for the owning road of a car to benefit from car movement under load if possible (meaning freight revenue), thus the rule directing that car should be loaded for movement via the home road, even if destined beyond that road.
     A further point to recognize is that although empty cars normally were returned homeward via the route they took when loaded, so that each road benefiting from handling the car under load would also bear the burden of moving the empty car without revenue, there was an important exception. If the road on which the car was made empty had a direct connection to the owning road, the car would be moved homeward via that direct connection, regardless of the route under load.
     [Much more on this topic can be found in the very interesting book by E.W. Coughlin of the AAR, entitled Freight Car Distribution and Car Handling in the United States (AAR, 1956). It can usually be readily found on the Internet through used book dealers.]
     Railroaders will usually comment, when addressing this topic, that the AAR list of rules fails to show one rule, sometimes called the “boss rule,” or “rule zero,” or the “big rule.” That rule is stated something like, “Protect the shipment.” That means, provide the shipper with the car he needs, even if you have to break all the other six rules, and you can be sure your supervision will not criticize you for doing so.
     That leads to the question, “just how seriously were these rules taken? are they really rules or just guidelines?” Several AAR studies found that the Car Service Rules were obeyed around 80 or 90 percent of the time (before World War II) in loading empties, but more like 65 percent thereafter, and recollections of employees of the transition era are consistent with such percentages. So although these were not really mandatory, they did tend to be generally followed.
     How does all this affect modeling and operations on model layouts? You can, of course, entirely ignore them and spot cars for loading however you like. But if you want to capture some of the prototype approach, at least try to load foreign empties in a homeward direction, and move direct-connection empties directly homeward.
     What is perhaps less obvious is that loaded cars arriving at your industries from distant origins should also have been loaded according to the Car Service Rules. That means that the originating railroad in some distant area, say New England for my SP layout, would probably not use its own cars, nor empties of railroads in its immediate area of the country, because those would go home on direct connections. Instead, they would be trying to load cars typical of the area you model. As an SP modeler, this means I expect to receive loads from the far corners of the country in SP, UP and Santa Fe box cars in many cases.
     In times of economic weakness, when the car supply tends to be in surplus, foreign empties probably do go home much of the time. But in boom times, when car supply can get rather tight, the Car Service Rules are usually bent to suit circumstances. This can be an “out” for those who don’t want to bother about car service; just say you are modeling a time of prosperity. Or you can do a little research and find out if your chosen modeling period, say fall of 1950, was in fact a boom time or not.
     But whatever you choose to do on your own layout, knowing something about the Car Service Rules helps you choose how prototypical you want to be in operation.
Tony Thompson

M&StL box car: addendum

After my blog post about modeling a Minneapolis & St. Louis box car appeared (it’s at http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/modeling-project-m-box-car.html ), Douglas Harding sent me a photo of a M&StL car which is much closer to the Train Miniature (TM) model. You can see that it not only has the Howe truss arrangement of side bracing which the TM model has, but also has Z-bar bracing like the TM car.

I don’t know the date of this photo, but the reweigh date on the car is June 1938, so it probably was taken no later than the end of 1940 (reweigh intervals at that time were 30 months).
     But there is a drawback to this prototype choice too. There were 212 cars listed in the M&StL number series 18000-18999 (even numbers only) in the July 1946 Official Railway Equipment Register, but by 1949 none remained to be listed. Since I model 1953, that pretty much rules out an 18000-series prototype, but for modelers of earlier eras, this would probably be a better choice. Thanks for the interesting photo, Doug.
Tony Thompson

“Shake ’n’ Take” modeling project: DT&I gondola

The 2010 “Shake ’n’ Take” modeling project at the Prototype Rails meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida, was a 40-foot Detroit, Toledo & Ironton gondola. It was designed as a kitbash from the Athearn (nominal) 50-foot gondola, and John Engstrom of Athearn arranged the donation of the kits to be used as starting points for the project. Other contributors included Ted Culotta of Speedwitch, who donated the resin drop ends, and Tom Madden, who produced them; Jim Singer of 5th Ave. Car Shops, who arranged for the custom decals; and Brian Leppert of Tahoe Model Works, who donated the double-truss side frames for the car trucks.
     This project actually had its inception in a Richard Hendrickson article, published years ago in Prototype Modeler (November-December issue, 1982, pages 12-16), and Richard guided Greg Martin in preparing the instructions for the “Shake ’n’ Take” project. With Greg’s permission, I have posted a PDF of the project instructions on Google Docs. Here is the link:

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0Bz_ctrHrDz4wNDY0YjgyYWItNjY4NC00ZDY2LTg3NjgtZDNkMjg3ZjU5MzU5

     The basic process is to shorten the Athearn model by cutting and removing a piece in the car center, two side panels long, and re-attaching the remaining pieces, with corresponding underframe modifications; and replacement of the Athearn fixed ends with drop ends and making corresponding changes in the end framing. I stripped off the paint of the donated kit, and worked with the bare plastic body.
     I began with the body shortening, a similar process to which I had done years ago, following Richard’s articles on lengthening the Athearn car from its stock length of 48+ scale feet, for several longer prototypes. I like to add reinforcing strips to the new joint, inside the side sill, as is visible in the photo below. I cut the Athearn weight to fit the new car length, removing about 3/4-inch in the middle, and likewise cutting that amount from the Athearn underframe. As Greg points out in the kit instructions, we don’t know for sure what kind of center sill these cars had, and I chose to simply retain the Athearn fishbelly design, though it may not be correct for this car.
     Here is a view of the underbody at this point, with the car reduced to 41 feet long. The saw cut where material was removed from the underframe is visible, as is model putty on the side joint. The reinforcement strip is white, and the gap where the steel weight was cut is the shiny line to the left of the car center. The couplers are just a trial installation.

The floor was smoothed, since a wood floor will be inserted. Ends were sawed out, then cleaned up like this:

According to Greg’s directions, new end frames were fabricated from styrene, and looked like this:

     But at this point, I realized that Greg’s procedure would result in an end frame which was too thick, if I followed his method of adding scale 4 x 4-inch styrene to the back of these frames. I also was not happy with the depth and shape of the end sill in these new parts. So I narrowed the upright portions, cut them off flush with the bottom of the “U” shape, and glued the four “post pieces” to the car ends, making them flush with the car side (a photo of this is further along).
     I then added the styrene 4 x 4, but flush with the car end surface, and when the glue was dry, shaped them with files and sandpaper to the desired shape. The net result is an end frame which looks like the prototype thickness and shape, and is not, to my eye, over-thick. This prototype photo from Richard Hendrickson’s collection is a good end view (and nicely shows the hand brake support arrangement also), clearly showing the shape of the end frame. You can click on the image to enlarge it.

Here is how the A end of my model looked with the revised construction:

     Further work was straightforward detailing for the most part, and I simply followed Greg’s directions. For sill steps, I used A-Line Style B, which, though not exactly like the prototype, do have a similar look. In mounting these, I used the same trick with 4 x 4 styrene blocks behind the side sill as in my M&StL box car project (see the description of this sill step procedure at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/12/modeling-project-m-box-car.html ).
     Other details included A-Line drop grab irons and an InterMountain Ajax hand brake and a retainer valve (from their 1937 AAR box car detail set). I applied Archer rivets to the end frames, rather than apply individual rivets as Greg did.
     The resin drop ends, as mentioned above, were part of the kit. The ends were added after gluing in the “wood” floor (Evergreen no. 3047, called “Passenger Car Siding.” (In HO scale, it corresponds to the commonly-used 5-1/2-inch board width for gondola wood floors). On other projects, I have represented wood floors with a wider spacing by using Evergreen no. 2067 (“Freight Car Siding”), which is 0.020-inch thickness, a little easier to work with than the 0.030-inch thickness of Evergreen no. 3047.
     I installed the Tahoe Model Works trucks which were provided with the kit, the double-truss AAR design, and added Reboxx 0.088-inch wheel treads and 1.010-inch axles.
     Since I didn’t have an interest in an auto-frame load for this car, I consulted the January 1953 issue of the Official Railway Equipment Register and found that 30 of DT&I’s gondolas of this body style were not equipped with auto frame racks at this time, and I chose one of the listed car numbers among those 30 for my model. Here is the completed car, after airbrushing, lettering with the decals provided, and weathering with acrylic washes.

The drop ends of this car are eye-catching, as they are correctly ribbed with the major corrugations convex toward the car interior, as on the prototype. Here is an end view to show both ends, along with the wood floor, posed at the Shumala depot.

     This completes an interesting project on which I carried out a few tasks that weren’t familiar, thus hopefully expanding my capabilities. This is one of the attractions of activities like the “Shake ’n’ Take” projects, along with, of course, the opportunity to make a distinctive and useful freight car for the fleet. My thanks again to Greg Martin for sustaining this activity at “Prototype Rails” in Cocoa Beach.
Tony Thompson

Modeling project: M&StL box car

At the meeting in Lisle, Illinois last October, I was intrigued by a clinic given by Clark Propst, entitled “M&StL Freight Cars You Should Build.” Though this railroad was not large, it did have a freight car fleet of some size; of greater importance, every model freight car fleet does need a few representatives of “unlikely” railroads (unlikely in the Gilbert-Nelson sense). Whenever samplings of prototype data are done, a few cars always show up from relatively small railroads.
     Although none of the car projects Clark presented directly inspired me, I did begin to think that some suitable Minneapolis & St. Louis car might be a good subject. With that thought in the back of my mind, I was browsing in Railroad Prototype Cyclopedia issue 18 awhile back, specifically the article on the ARA 1923 standard box cars. Turns out that the M&StL bought 500 of these cars, their 24000 series (even numbers only). The article includes four prototype photos.
     Mental wheels started to turn. I realized that the old Train Miniature single-sheathed box car is somewhat like the single-sheathed ARA car, though details are not up to current standards. Might I have one somewhere in my freight car stash?
     Yes, I did. Moreover, it turned out to have some of the features of the M&StL cars. (You always have to check the details of the particular model, because Train Miniature or TM mixed and matched car sides, roofs and ends, sometimes in ways that had no prototype.) Though lettered as a Wellsville, Addison & Galeton (WAG) car, it had wood ends, outside metal roof, and wood doors, all features of the M&StL cars--though the ends weren’t quite right--more on that in a moment. The sides are a Howe truss arrangement instead of the ARA Pratt truss, so the model can only be a stand-in, but would have the right general look. Here is the model out of the box:

The WAG lettering already present, though interesting, would only be correct for cars obtained by the WAG in 1958, well after the time I model, and in any case the WAG cars were plate-end cars purchased from Boston & Maine, and the execution of the TM lettering is poor.
     How about decals for M&StL? I always like to be sure I can letter a model before embarking on the construction work. I sent e-mail to Clark to ask where I might get appropriate decals, and he replied that Mark Vaughan offers a set which, though intended for steel cars, could mostly be used for the ARA cars, with different dimensional data. I promptly ordered a decal set, Mark’s set BB. If you’d like to take a look at Mark’s listing, here’s a link: http://wabashcustomdecals.com/shopcustadminlogin.asp .
     Meanwhile, I studied the TM kit further. The ends need to have the bracing somewhat like standard ARA bracing, instead of TM’s smooth end. Here’s a drawing of the prototype standard ARA end, an end which most buyers of these cars did not select, but apparently M&StL did:

although the M&StL end was not quite like this (more in a moment). The car body in the TM kit has this end:

Not only the incorrect placard board needs to be removed, but also the ladder, as the prototype ladder was outside the diagonal brace. The inset roof end shown in the drawing was apparently not used by M&StL, though it could be simulated with a crosswise brace. I decided to neglect the annoying fact that the ARA-design end had horizontal sheathing boards, and the TM end has vertical ones.
     For this kind of work, I like to use an Exacto No. 17 (chisel) blade, to carve off the parts to be removed. I keep the blade under control, so when it cuts through the part it doesn’t skip ahead. After carving off most material, I sand lightly to make sure the surface is level. Then the board divisions are re-scribed through the areas where material was removed. The end then looks like this:

     Next the end bracing needs to be added. I used styrene scale 4 x 4-inch strip, which is oversize for the prototype bracing but is a good match for the simulated Z-bar bracing of the TM kit. (Might as well have sides and ends look about the same.)
     The styrene strips were sanded to approximate the shape of ARA hat-section braces and cemented to the car ends. I also drilled holes for wire grab irons on the ends, and for two grabs at the left of the sides (the TM model has only one side grab, as is correct for mid-1920s freight cars, but after 1931 two were required, and the second ones were added to older cars when next shopped).
     The six-rung ladder for the ends was a minor problem, as none of the commercial ladders I had in my stock had a rung spacing matching the side ladders (normally ladder rungs on sides and ends are equally spaced and located in the same plane). The nearest ladder spacing I had was the InterMountain 1937 AAR box car ladders, which I obtained (along with many other useful parts) in their Body Details set, part no. 40700-59. I cut off the lowest rung and added styrene spacers to permit the ladder to stand off above the end braces (the prototype ladders were arranged the same way). The completed A end looked like this before painting:

Obviously roof detailing remains to be done in this photo, and I’ve omitted the flanges by which the car’s sheathing was bolted to these end braces.
     The door tracks on the TM kit are rather oversize, especially the immense ledge which acts as a lower door track. I removed most of this, as well as the large “claws” on the door, which guide the TM door along the bottom track if it is operated (mine are glued on). The TM doors are intended to represent a bottom-supported door, whereas the M&StL cars had top-hung doors, but I decided not to correct this detail.
     The TM running board is seriously over-thick, but can be used if it is filed and sanded down to a realistic thickness. I did that, and replaced the cast-on corner grab irons with Tichy wire parts. I also glued the TM kit weights to the inside of the floor, using canopy cement (R/C-56) and adding about one inch of steel strip at the door location to add a little weight. I cut off the coupler pocket box lids so they would be separate parts, and removable if necessary for coupler maintenance.
     Of value beyond this one car project is a trick I often use for addition of metal sill steps. Drilling into the car body itself can be problematic if the shell is thin. So I glue a short length of scale 4 x 4-inch styrene inside the side sill, thus thickening the area where drilling is to be done. Once the cement is well set, I usually drill approximately along the interface between the car shell and the styrene block. Here’s a photo to show how it looks when A-Line Style C steps are attached:

     Finally, after painting, applying the Vaughan decals, and weathering the model, here is the final result. I used Tahoe Model Works Buckeye trucks.

     At this point a prototype photo may be useful. This one is from the Bob’s Photo collection, and location, date and photographer are unknown.

     This project was chosen as another example to show the kind of upgrades and modifications one can perform to get closer to a particular prototype, without any particular goal of creating an “excellent” model. And remember, this model is a stand-in. For me, this will be what I call a “main line” model, normally only used in passing trains, so correcting every detail just isn’t essential. But now I’m glad to have an M&StL freight car in my fleet.
Tony Thompson

Ballard, Part 3: first train

I have posted before about the town of Ballard on my layout. There was a general description of the town and its industries, under the title “Layout design: Ballard,” which can be viewed at the link: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/01/layout-design-ballard.html , and I also have described the role of Ballard in my layout scheme, in the post entitled “Layout design: locale” (that post can be found at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/01/layout-design-locale.html ).
     Placing the town on the layout required installing the track board, which was a landmark event in reassembling the existing parts of the layout, since Ballard is one of two major components in my layout design. I related this installation process in the first two posts with this title, “Ballard-1” (at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/09/ballard-1.html ) and “Ballard-2” (at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/09/ballard-2.html ).
     With the track board installed, the backdrop repaired and retouched, and some industrial buildings repaired and reinstalled, it was time to address operation. Track and wiring connections have now been completed, and I was able to operate a train into Ballard for the first time. Here it is on arrival:

This train is small, just SP Consolidation 2836, C&NW box car 65114, and PFE reefer 73617, with caboose 783, but it was still fun to operate. In this photo, the staging transfer table can be seen as a level below Ballard. At the moment, Ballard is only operated with DCC, and I may continue to make that the case.
     More needs to be done, but now that I can switch Ballard, waybill operation will become more relevant to the layout, and I can expand the things I can do. I have always enjoyed switching, so having more of it handy is fun.
Tony Thompson

New tank car article in RMC

I’ve finally received in the mail my copy of the January 2012 issue of Railroad Model Craftsman (RMC), containing my article on tank car modeling (pages 61-66). The article describes two tank car models, a Stauffer Chemical Company acid car, and a Buffalo Electro Chemical Company (Becco) peroxide car. These were first mentioned almost a year ago in this blog, in a description of the modeling projects I was taking to display at the annual Prototype Rails meeting in Cocoa Beach, Florida (see: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2010/12/tank-car-projects-for-cocoa-beach.html ). Following that meeting, I posted photos of the models which had been displayed, including the ones in the RMC article, and those are at this link: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/01/tank-car-projects-for-cocoa-beach-2.html .
     I was tempted to summarize in a blog post the model-building process for these two cars, but Bill Schaumburg, editor of Railroad Model Craftsman, was interested in an article for the magazine, so I wrote it up from that perspective. Whether an Internet description of the same models would in any way compete with the printed magazine, I don’t know, but it seemed to me that a single submission and presentation was a more ethical approach.
     I also want to acknowledge again the inspiration of Mark Feddersen’s tank car articles, fully 25 years ago. There were two of them, and I’ve now done models derived from both of his projects, although with somewhat different modeling approaches. Here are citations to Mark’s magazine articles:

Mark Feddersen, “ICC-104 Insulated Tank Car,” Mainline Modeler, October 1985, pp. 63-69.

Mark Feddersen, “The Becco peroxide tank car,” Prototype Modeler, January 1986, pp. 16-19. 

It’s the second of these articles which inspired my models in the January 2012 RMC, but the first article was part of the inspiration for my previous RMC article on tank cars, in July 2011, pages 65-71. Some comments and further details about that article were posted earlier in this blog; you can read them at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/06/tank-car-modeling.html .
     Additional tank car posts in this blog include my scratchbuilding project of an asymmetrical tank car with two compartments, which is at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/06/tank-car-modeling-2.html , and a description of my method of modeling Southern Pacific tank cars from Athearn models (revised from an SP Society Trainline article), which can be found at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/05/modeling-sp-tank-cars.html .

     Anyway, it’s nice to be in print in RMC again. I continue to work on tank car modeling projects, and I plan to describe them in future posts.

Tony Thompson

Route cards — 6

In prior posts on this topic, I have given dimensions of placard boards and route card boards as I have found them on drawings, in the Car Builders Cyclopedia and other sources, but as I mentioned, these parts are often not dimensioned, suggesting that there was a standard size. I inquired of Guy Wilber, who has access to documents like the AAR Manual (a loose-leaf book issued by the AAR Mechanical Division, containing current standard and recommended practices), whether there was in fact a standard for these boards.
      Guy was kind enough to look this up and send me a series of extracts from documents of various ages. For the situation before 1937, in the early days of all-steel cars, an AAR Manual comment states that “Apparently about half the roads are using the board shown on Plate 250 and others are using boards with clear space smaller than 5" x 8", but which probably serve the purpose for most cards.” Plate 250 initially had shown a route card board of 5" x 8" but in the 1937 AAR boxcar design, this was increased to 5-1/2" x 9" for the boards on boxcar doors.
     A 1948 Car Construction Committee report addressed the continuing irregularities of the routing card boards (as is visible in many photographs). The 1948 revisions to the Manual clarified size (5-1/2" x 9") and changed thickness from 1-1/4 inches to, “not less than 25/32 inch.” Wording of Interchange Rule 49(c) was also changed at this time. It is important to realize this was all “Recommended Practice” and was neither mandatory nor universally followed.
     In 1952 came further revisions for routing card boards to, “Card board to be located on house cars on one door on each side directly under placard board and as near the bottom of door as lifting handle will permit.” This followed a circular letter in 1950 to car owners pointing out difficulties utilizing card boards on steel house cars which were located higher than 72" above ground level. Only card boards were lowered. The Car Construction Committee attempted lowering the placard boards as well, but needed approval from the Bureau of Explosives, which would not be granted until 1953. This was also agreed by union carmen and others affected.

     In 1953 agreement was reached to lower placard boards also, to go into effect in 1954. Here is an extract from the 1954 edition of the AAR Manual:

“Recommended Practice, adopted in 1914; Revised, 1948, 1952 and 1953.
     “The space available for placards should not be less than 16 by 24 inches on each end and each side of car. Steel house cars should be provided with placard boards made of soft wood not less than 16 by 24 inches and not less than 25/32 inches thick. The vertical edges should be reinforced with metal protection pieces fastened to the board with not less than six bolts, three through each, and at least four of these bolts should be used to fasten the placard board to the door, car end, or placard bracket when used. The boards may be made of more than one piece, and should be tongued and grooved, shiplap, or notched edge. The distance from the floor line of car to the bottom of board should not exceed 2 ft. 6 in. for end board and 22 in. for side boards.  These will be located on each end and on one door on each side.
      “On steel house cars routing boards with space not less than 5-1/2 by 9 in. available for tacking cards will be placed on one door on each side to left of placard board with lower edge in line with lower edge of placard board and so as not to interfere with lifting handle of door.  On steel refrigerator cars, routing card boards shall be located on each side directly under placard boards.
     “On other than house cars, card board must be located on each side of car near bottom at left end, facing side of car, or on outer end of end sill.  On cars equipped with center sills only, card boards must be located near center of car attached to outer end of running board support, or attached to outer end of body bolster.”

     Illustration plates in the Manual were changed, as was wording of Interchange Rule 49(c). Again, remember that this was recommended practice, not mandatory.
     It is also worthwhile to note that receptacles for defect cards were required for all cars built new or rebuilt on or after January 1, 1937.  This was to separate defect cards from route cards, which had apparently caused some confusion. I will illustrate this with a repeat photo, PFE class R-40-14 built in 1941, shown before (see: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2011/11/route-cards-4.html)

The route card board here is on the side sill tab located at the bolster. The small, slanted-top appliance directly above it on the car side is the defect card holder. This car does not have car fans.
     Thanks to Guy Wilber for the background on this. The main point here is that there was a recommended minimum size for placard boards and for route card boards; the former appears to have almost always been applied in that size, but the route card boards continued to vary somewhat in size and certainly in placement. And here again, as in so many modeling issues, a prototype photo is essential for accurate modeling of these details.
Tony Thompson