Additions to a small personal post (poetry)

Last month I posted a short personal note about my poetry writing, and provided a link to a Google Drive document, containing a number of published and a few unpublished poems. You can read that post at this link: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/09/another-small-personal-note-poetry.html . I was asked about two missing poems that had been published but weren’t in the Google Drive document. I have now gone back and added those poems. 

Further, I realized upon re-reading that the introductory piece I wrote, appearing on the second page of the document to give some background to the poems, wasn’t very complete, and I have expanded it somewhat.

I was also asked about the ones published in Western Humanities Review, a fairly distinguished journal, still being produced by the University of Utah Press and sponsored by the Department of English. I have scanned those pages as they were originally printed, and added them to the Google Drive document. These changes, and a few minor corrections, mean that I need to offer a new link to the revised document, and that is below.

But first, I want to respond to a reader who asked if I had written any other poems with railroad subjects, like the “Icing Reefers” poem shown in the previous post. The answer is yes. Here is one of them, with a suitable SP photo to illustrate. You can click on the image if the text is too small.

There are others of this kind, a few including illustrative photographs like “Helper,” above. Several of them have been inserted into the expanded Google Drive document. It now contains 27 poems instead of the original version’s 15. On the last page is a bibliographic listing of all the published pieces. Here’s a link to the new PDF:  

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IxWQoVJ2nL_-gxMblCy7jdjBPZoC491R/view?usp=sharing

Anthony Thompson

Pennsy freight cars, Part 3: gondolas

 I began this series of posts with some general observations about the freight car fleet of the Pennsylvania Railroad, compared to other major railroad car fleets, in 1950. My comparison emphasized the size of all the fleets with hopper cars omitted — because for much of the country, hoppers aren’t very visible in interchange, a point I’ve made elsewhere. (My first PRR post of the present series can be found here: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/11/modeling-pennsy-freight-cars.html ).

I mentioned in that first post that a distinguishing feature of the PRR was that it had about equal numbers of box cars, gondolas and  hoppers. The pair of car fleet graphs below show this. The graph on the left is the national car fleet in 1950, and to the right is the PRR fleet in that year. The vertical bars are in the same order by car type in both graphs, but for the present comparison you only need to know that the first three bars are for box cars, hoppers, and gondolas. (You can click on the image to enlarge it if you wish.)

It is evident that the PRR fleet was considerably different from the national average — as is true for almost all railroads, due to traffic differences.

(To be complete, let me add that the national car fleet graph, above at left, is somewhat misleading in that nearly all tank cars, and a substantial number of refrigerator cars, were privately owned, so no railroad could be expected to have a fleet car distribution like the national average. But for the present discussion, about the first three bars at the left of both graphs, that’s not an issue.)

Now let’s look at the gondolas. As with many PRR car groups, the very numerous survivors of car classes built in the 1920s and before largely disappeared after World War II, and newer cars dominated the fleet in turn. In this instance, it is the GR and GS classes, totally dominant in 1939, that were almost entirely replaced by 1955.

One can readily see from the graph above that postwar gondola modeling should emphasize G22, G27 and G31 classes. In the present post, I only want to address Class G22.

This class, 46 feet long inside, was the first gondola that long in the PRR fleet, and one of the earliest in the United States. Generally similar to its predecessor, Class GS, it had 12 side stakes on account of its length, compared to 10 side stakes on the 38-foot GS cars. Built during 1915–1917, the design was well enough respected to become the basis for the USRA 70-ton gondola. The photo below of PRR 352068 is from the Joe Collias collection, and was taken at East St. Louis in 1939.

There has long been a very nice Westerfield resin kit for this car in HO scale (kit 1201), and in fact Richard Hendrickson’s review of that kit contains one of the best summaries of prototype information on the car class (Prototype Modeler, Jan.-Feb. 1984, page 42). Shown below is my model of this class, PRR 315287, shown on the Shumala passing siding of Southern Pacific’s Coast Line on my layout. In 1953, the year I model, there were still more than 4200 of these distinctive gondolas in service on the PRR (not counting those modified for container service).

This distinct low-side gondola is an interesting and welcome addition to my freight car fleet. That’s not only because it was a landmark in gondola design history, but also because it models a nationally significant gondola in its sheer numbers.

Tony Thompson

An appreciation: Denny Anspach

 As many readers already know, Denny Anspach, MD, passed away on September 20 at the age of 86. I knew Denny for 30 years, though not really a close friend, and learned long ago to appreciate his  many fine qualities. 

He was a skilled and energetic modeler in HO scale, but is far better known as the “father” (in some senses) of CSRM, the California State Railroad Museum. That is part of my connection to Denny; I  served for almost 20 years under his chairmanship of the museum’s Collections Committee, and I got to see close up how historically knowledgeable he was, and how dedicated to railroad history and preservation.

I wrote a short obituary for Denny at the request of Richard Bale, columnist for the on-line magazine Model Railroad Hobbyist, and what I wrote has now been published in the November 2020 issue. The piece is contained in the issue’s section on “news and events,” by Richard Bale and Jeff Schultz. That section is included in the free edition of MRH, available to read on-line or download, at their website, www.mrhmag.com , and is also included in the “Running Extra” edition for those of you who subscribe to it.

A distinguishing characteristic of Denny was his considerable interest in “classic” HO scale freight car kits. He was very knowledgeable about the history of early manufacturers, and had collected many of the kits. In fact, he greatly enjoyed finding an old kit, perhaps not skillfully assembled or well maintained, and then disassembling it, repairing any flaws, and reassembling it, often with upgraded details, so it was better than new.

Below is a photo from a couple of years ago, provided by CSRM, showing Denny with the kind of rolling stock he worked so hard to preserve. This is the same image used in MRH, except they cropped it very tightly to his head only.

In my MRH piece, I tried to summarize his CSRM connections briefly, and included a modeling anecdote that for me summed up the life attitudes of “Doctor Denny,” as he was known to his friends. May he rest in peace.

Tony Thompson

Pennsy freight cars, Part 2: modeling X29

 In a previous post, I compared the freight car fleet of the United States, in the form of the 15 largest railroad car fleets, to the Pennsylvania Railroad (data for 1950). I also showed the size of the major PRR box car classes in 1939 and 1955, showing dramatically how dominant was the X29 class (see that post at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/11/modeling-pennsy-freight-cars.html ). 

That previous post also showed some prototype photos of a few of the variations in appearance of the X29 class box cars. In the present post I want to comment on modeling Class X29. The first mass-produced model of this PRR car class was by Train Miniature (TM). Though somewhat crude in its cast-on grabs, ladders and sill steps, it nevertheless captured very well the overall look of this car body, and those details could be replaced. 

The more major upgrade needed on the TM model was the underframe. The business plan of TM was to create a 40-foot underframe that could be used under a wide range of freight car models, and accordingly they designed it to have a conventional bolster-to-car-end spacing of five and a half scale feet. But the X29 has only a five-foot spacing. It was not difficult to “cut and paste” underframe slices to correct the spacing, though not too many modelers did so. Below is one I did.

Note that this car has the short upper door track and the panel door , but has the low, single door stop.

A far better molding became available from Red Caboose, and before long they added a car body with patch panels. (These panels repaired rusted-out side panels at the bottom.) This was really great, as adding patch panels to the TM body was not trivial. What did these look like on the prototype? Below is a detail from the Wilbur Whittaker 1953 prototype photo shown in the previous post. You can see that the patches are riveted at the side posts, but the seam to the original panel above is welded.

The Red Caboose body models this nicely. Below I show a photograph of an undecorated Red Caboose body, and you can compare it to the prototype detail photo above.

Models, of course, benefit greatly from this detail. The first photo above, of my modified Train Miniature X29, does have partial patch panels, of 0.005-inch styrene sheet; but they are not easy to see on the model. The Red Caboose ones are considerably better. Here is an example of an RC body without patch panels, shown in the consist of the Santa Rosalia Local in my layout town of Ballard. The car has a corrugated door and low, single door stop.

These Pennsy box cars did get awfully dirty in service, and were many years between repaintings. I have tried to capture that look, especially the roofs being dirtier than the sides, as you see above. Note that the route card board is right next to the bottom of the car door. 

With patch panels, I have two models, one looking fairly freshly painted. It is in fact an as-decorated Red Caboose kit, with panel door, short upper track, and both door stops.

But nearly all my PRR box cars are well dirtied, as in the example below, spotted at the Martinelli Brothers cannery in my layout town of Santa Rosalia. This one has a panel door.

Modeling these cars is relatively easy if the Red Caboose bodies can be found (availability varies). What I have shown above is not all my X29 models, and I don’t think I have even one too many. It’s a rare operating session on my layout when an X29 doesn’t appear somewhere!

In future posts, I will go on to discuss other PRR box cars, as well as other PRR freight cars.

Tony Thompson

Modeling Pennsy freight cars

The freight car fleet of the Pennsylvania Railroad, throughout its history up to the Penn Central merger in 1968, was the largest in the United States. That’s one reason for a statement often repeated by modelers,  that “if you model freight cars, you model the Pennsy.” They went everywhere and were seen everywhere. I can’t hope to provide a wide view of this immense fleet, but will just endeavor to make a few points that I hope are useful.

I will begin with a comparison of the largest 15 freight car fleets in 1950. In order to offer the most general use, this graph has been drawn by excluding the hopper cars of all the railroads in the graph, on the basis that for modelers of areas far from the PRR or any of these roads, the hopper cars would all but invisible in interchange. (Full disclosure: I model the California coast. Obviously your own mileage may differ.) 

But even with hopper cars omitted, PRR is clearly the largest fleet. Note that PFE, jointly owned by SP and UP but regarded by the ICC as a private owner, shows up here.

The Pennsylvania car fleet was interesting in that it had a very large proportion of gondolas, as many as its box cars, but this post concentrates on the box cars. PRR box cars have an immediate focus: for modelers of any period from the 1920s to the end of the transition era, probably the most important PRR freight car to recognize is the Class X29 box car.

The graph below shows the largest classes of PRR box cars in two years, 1939 and 1955. The total dominance of the X29, with over 29,000 cars originally built, is obvious. Note also the disappearance of the X25 cars and shrinkage of X26, by 1955, along with a new post-war class, X43. But the X29 is clearly the biggest story.

There are a great many complexities to the huge X29 car class, and I will  not endeavor to address them here in any detail. For those interested, there are some superb published sources, which I list below.

G.C. Rauch and R.L. Johnson, The Keystone (PRH&TS magazine), December 1978.

Ted Culotta (“Essential Freight Cars” series, nos. 35 and 36), Railroad Model Craftsman, January,  February 2007.

Patrick C. Wider, Railroad Prototype Cyclopedia, No. 24 (2012).

There were a great many differences in detail during the years of production (1924 to 1934), some quite minor, and I would refer the reader to the sources listed above. But I will illustrate the primary features. The earliest cars had a “car builder” panel door (not a Creco door) with two door stops to the right of the door, and a short upper door track. They also had the signature flat plate end. Built in late 1924 by AC&F (American Car & Foundry), the earliest cars predated the “circle keystone” paint scheme, and had the road name underlined (AC&F photo, courtesy Ed Kaminski).

Later in the 1920s, PRR began to apply corrugated doors to the X29 production, and the two door stops of early cars were replaced by a single stop just above the bottom door track. The upper door track was also extended. Here is an example of this appearance  (AC&F photo, Richard Hendrickson collection). The very last X29 cars built, during 1932 to 1934, had Dreadnaught ends.

Without going into detail, I should mention that practically all combinations of the features just described can be found on X29s that underwent various upgrades or repairs. A common change in later years was the repair of rusted-out side panels at the bottom. The PRR applied what were called “patch panels” to replace the rusted area, frequently along the full car length. The Wilbur C. Whittaker photo below shows this, in a 1953 photo at San Jose, California. (Click on the image to enlarge if you wish.)

Because of their sheer numbers, modelers of almost any North American railroad before 1960 need to include models of X29 box cars in their model fleet. I will turn to modeling issues and opportunities in a following post.

Tony Thompson

A resin gondola kit

I have been completing the construction of my stash of resin kits, and the latest on the firing line is a Funaro & Camerlengo (F&C) kit for a Union Railroad gondola. This kit models a low-side mill gondola, just 50 feet long inside, that belonged to one of the U.S. Steel railroads, the Union. It’s kit 8141, and has a one-piece body, making it an easy build. (There was once a flat kit also, and the kit directions describe the construction of both, though not always clearly — make sure you use all the parts.)

The Union Railroad operates even today in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania area, and when I lived in Pittsburgh, I railfanned and photographed the Union a number of times. Serving what was then a vast complex of U.S. Steel facilities along and near the Monongahela River, it was an endlessly interesting prototype, so I was delighted when F&C offered this kit. Below is a prototype photo from the F&C directions.

It’s just possible to see in this builder photo that the “builder label’ reads “Pressed Steel Car Co.” The built date on the car is June 1936. Other builders of Union gondolas like this included Ralston, and Greenville Steel Car Company.

The one-piece body is very nice, with folding stake holders modeled on the inside walls and very nice sides and ends. The white resin body isn’t easy to photograph well, but shown below is an overall view of the body before adding any parts. Even the profiles of the Dreadnaught ends are correctly modeled on both sides.

The first step is the addition of bolsters and end sills to the one-piece body. The heavy, extended end sills fit perfectly on the body, impressive design and manufacturing. I pre-drilled a pilot hole in each bolster. Then the sills and bolsters were installed with CA, followed by the AB brake parts. I chose not to include piping on this model, as it would be hidden by the center sill.

With the bolsters in place, I drilled them for 2-56 screws, and tapped them using a bottoming tap or “gun tap.” Styrene sill steps are provided in the kit, but I substituted A-Line metal steps, Style A, to match the prototype photos. I installed them with canopy cement. The photo below shows the underbody at this stage. I have not yet fitted the coupler boxes. 

Then the floor casting is filed to fit inside, and installed.This is a very nice bit of resin casting, beautifully rich in rivets but a thin sheet. I attached it with canopy glue. On the underbody, I now installed several A-Line lead weights, so that the completed model will have some weight. These weights were cut in half with a large side-cutter so they will fit between center sill and sides.

Next I installed all the grab irons, noting that the side grab irons, 24 scale inches wide, are different from the end grab irons. With that done, I installed the handbrake gear box and chain on the B end, but used a Kadee Ajax brake wheel instead of the kit casting. Last, I installed corner caps and the retainer.

With the car supported on “interim truck support blocks,” I spray painted the entire model black. (The “support blocks” were described in an earlier post, at: http://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2014/11/interim-truck-support-blocks.html .) Though the cars were not delivered in this color, by 1950 they had all been repainted black.

My next step of course was lettering. I used the kit decals, after applying a coat of Microscale Liquid Decal Film (F&C decals often need help). The Union had two groups of essentially identical cars, 1000 originally in each group, 6000–6999 and 9000–9999. There were slightly more of the 6000 series in service in my modeling year of 1953, so I chose a car number in that series. 

Another issue is trucks. Modelers routinely use 50-ton trucks under 70-ton cars like this one (I’ve done it myself. . .), but in fact the 70-ton wheelbase usually differs, sideframes may be heavier, and spring groups are different. Looking at the photos in the F&C kit directions, the closest sideframe appearance I could find in a 70-ton truck is the Tahoe Model Works ASF truck (Tahoe no. 210), though this is actually a postwar design. At least it looks about like the Union Railroad prototype.

This photo shows the car with lettering completed but awaiting weathering. Couplers are removed until weathering takes place.

     I chose to write about this kit because it is simple. I know there are some readers who are reluctant to take on any resin kit, but the modern resin kits with one-piece bodies are really not much more challenge than a styrene kit that has upgraded details. And you have access to an immensely greater variety of freight car models than if you depend entirely on styrene.

Tony Thompson

Waybills, Part 77: shipments “in bond”

As a continuation of the previous two posts about waybills, parts 75 and 76, which talked about car movements and corresponding waybills when crossing international boundaries, this post is about a special shipment type, “in bond” shipments. In effect, this shipping arrangement moves the border inspection process to another location. It does not change the requirement for a shipment entering the country to be inspected and, if necessary, pay duty, it just changes the location of those events.

{Anyone wishing to read the two previous posts, or for that matter any previous waybill posts, can readily find them by using "waybills, part" as the search term in the search box at right.)

Strictly speaking, a shipment leaving the international border in bond, without customs inspection, remains in the possession of the U.S. government until it can receive its customs inspection and clearance, usually at destination. The most important reason for shipment in bond is to avoid congestion and delay at the border, and sometimes also to arrange consistent inspection to be done by a knowledgeable inspector of a particular kind of cargo.

Needless to say, like any international shipment, movement in bond calls for lots of additional paperwork, and as I have already observed in this connection, there is essentially none of it that we would want or need to reproduce for model railroading. But there is some waybill language that we might like to include.

I will begin by showing a waybill form which exhibits some of the “in bond” shipment complexities. It is from the extensive waybill collection of Andy Laurent. A selection from Andy’s collection. including this one, can be viewed at the following link he supplied: http://www.greenbayroute.com/1962ahwwaybills2.htm . 

Here we see most prominently a rubber stand designating the “in bond” status, and like the other facsimiles I have made of such stamps, this can be reproduced by simple Photoshop techniques (see my post on the topic, at: https://modelingthesp.blogspot.com/2020/10/waybills-part-73-creating-rubber-stamps.html ). But let us look further.  In the lower part of the waybill is this language:

This describes the arrangements. The customs broker in Green Bay, Wisconsin is identified, and the Collector of Customs at Green Bay will collect whatever duty is to be paid and will issue customs clearance, evidently to happen physically at the destination of Algoma, Wisconsin. Only on completion of these formalities can the cargo be delivered to the consignee. The transportation and entry documents are to be filed by the consignee at the original U.S. entry point, Port Huron, Michigan.

(Reading about all these regulations reminded me of an interesting railroad detail from the excellent book, Last Call, by Daniel Okrent [Scribner, 2010], about the rise and fall of Prohibition. During Prohibition, considerable amounts of whiskey were distilled in Canada and exported to the U.S. Of course, it could not legally enter the U.S., though Canada was happy to accept payment of export duties [Canada did not see U.S. entry as Canada’s problem]. How to circumvent the entry barrier?

(A favorite [illegal] method was to ship the whiskey into the U.S. “in bond” for destinations in Mexico or Cuba. In other words, the car would remain sealed while transiting the U.S. Then local officials in Mexico or Cuba were bribed to stamp false entry certificates, which were in turn provided to U.S. authorities to “prove” delivery abroad. Of course, the whiskey was unloaded at various points in the U.S., and the empty cars forwarded to their waybill destinations. I would assume railroaders cooperated in these activities, perhaps for a share of the cargo.)

My own layout, the locale of which is a rural area of the California coast, is perhaps unlikely to receive shipments in bond. However, I do have a few opportunities. An example is below. There were Collectors of Customs at many cities within the U.S., though I have not been able to find a list for the 1950s. I have assumed that Oakland, California would certainly be such a location, but whether there would be another one closer to my layout’s locale, I don't know. The amount of verbiage about the movement in bond has necessarily had to be reduced on this small waybill form.

I should emphasize that the various details having to do with “in bond” shipment do not affect how this car would be handled in switching during an operating session. The “in bond” details are what Al Kalmbach rightly called “typographic scenery,” and obviously this may not appeal to lots of modelers. But I have enjoyed learning about this subject, and making a few waybills for future operating sessions.

Tony Thompson