Author Topic: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing  (Read 1272 times)

Ed Lecuyer

  • Administrator
  • Supervisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,783
    • View Profile
    • Historical Topo Maps
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #15 on: July 15, 2017, 01:46:44 AM »
I think the bigger "visibility" issue with the boxcar in the consist is not for the passengers, but for the crew. It is much more difficult for the train crew to manage a 3 car train - with isolated from visibility to/from the engine cab. Hand brakes also become an issue.

These can all be solved (and now having a run-around at TOM certainly helps.) But for now, I agree to keep it at Sheepscot,  then work towards a "destination" at TOM. (And maybe we will actually integrate "doubling the hill" in our operations someday.)
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #16 on: July 15, 2017, 08:30:24 AM »
Doubling the hill would be good for a railfan type charter, but your normal visitor could care less about watching a train perform a switching maneuver for any length of time. (Unless it is absolutely needed)

Same can be said for the mixed train, so maybe a standing train could be set up in the yard for them to see? Even if its just a box car and coach, or something like that.

Stephen Piwowarski

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #17 on: July 15, 2017, 11:19:54 AM »
So we need to come up with some ideas of what visitors can do at Top of the Mountain. If a trackside area was mowed and maintained, perhaps with a bench or two, people could get off and a trainman could describe our plans for the sawmill/shingle mill complex. If an information board was installed showing the proposed track layout there, with the inclusion of the track going down the mountain, commentary could be offered explaining the location's original use and our plans for the future. As has been mentioned previously, a loop walking path could be built and maintained so that people could take a short walk around the property. Even smoothing and clearing the road to the Porcupine Palace would provide a place for folks to stretch their legs.

Yes! This- I agree with Bob and Wayne that some limited development at ToM before the mill gets build would be really handy in improving the visitor experience! "Make it a fascinating destination, not just a static turnaround". I love that! I have a proposal in hand from a museum member about building an interpretive trail there and expanding some of our options at ToM. Bob, is this something you'd be interested in helping to develop along with a couple of others?

Just to clarify- the boxcar on the train would not be used for pick ups and set-outs. As I understand it, a boxcar that was designated LCL would run through, all the way from one end of the line to the other. My thought would be to run a consist such as the boxcar and coach 8 or coach 3. The boxcar would be open for display while the train is on the platform at Sheepscot. I'll be trying it as conductor once we get the trucks under 309 in good shape. As Ed said, for now, as work is being completed on the trucks, it will stay in Sheepscot and be open for the public.

Joe, some of those waybills and associated documents (I'm not sure how they all worked together- need some help figuring that bit out) will be part of the boxcar display. Thanks!

I had thought that doubling the hill would normally be tough on passengers (who would want to it around just for the loco to pic up some other cars), but if you had the mill at ToM, people could go through and tour the mill, etc. while the engine picked up the rest of the cars. Plus, visitors would get to see the engine screaming up the mountain with the rest of their train. It could be really cool one day. It's at least worth trying!

Steve




Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #18 on: July 15, 2017, 08:52:01 PM »
Yes, those old documents are hard to figure out what certain things meant, but if a group of us sit down and try to decifer, it would be neat to have arrows pointing to certain areas to translate it into "modern" terms in a display so that people viewing them without a volunteer present can have some clue as to what they are looking at.

Ed Lecuyer

  • Administrator
  • Supervisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,783
    • View Profile
    • Historical Topo Maps
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #19 on: July 15, 2017, 09:43:54 PM »
I was envisioning the doubling of the hill to occur in conjunction with the activities at TOM. Ideally, the "mixed" train consist would have the freight cars on the north end of the train. The train would not stop at TOM northbound. The freight would be left at 218 (or Head Tide) and passengers brought to TOM. The train returns to 218/Head Tide to get the freight cars while the passengers see the activities at TOM. This gives plenty of time to see everything at TOM and puts it in the context of a historic operating practice. And everyone gets the thrill of experiencing the train work the grade, witness some switching operations, or whatnot.

(Of course, we are a long ways off before we get to this point.)
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum

Bob Holmes

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 122
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #20 on: July 15, 2017, 11:19:01 PM »
Steve, I'm happy to get involved with such a project.  Let me know further...

Stephen Piwowarski

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #21 on: July 17, 2017, 12:30:07 PM »
Excellent! I will start getting the group organized. Work will likely begin after the next board meeting, which is in a couple of weeks. Send me an email with your contact information so we can be in touch regarding projects and work times. My email is spwoodwinds@gmail.com Anyone else interested in this effort, feel free to send me an email with the same.

Steve

« Last Edit: July 17, 2017, 12:41:54 PM by Stephen Piwowarski »

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 587
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #22 on: July 17, 2017, 10:26:25 PM »
Steve, as mentioned I am more than happy to help out in any way I can.

Carl Soderstrom

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 202
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #23 on: July 18, 2017, 01:58:50 AM »
Not having access to waybills:

How much LCL was boxcar and how much was combine car.

I would think there were more and larger boxcar LCL in the early days
and more combine LCL in the later days.

Wayne Laepple

  • Museum Member
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,258
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #24 on: July 18, 2017, 02:10:58 AM »
You're probably right about the amount of LCL declining as time went on, Carl. Where I grew up in the 60's, the local carried an LCL car ahead of the caboose, and some days there was hardly anything in it. Come to think of it, I saw a photo one time of a couple of PRR freight trainmen unloading a crated tombstone from a caboose!

Stephen Piwowarski

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #25 on: July 18, 2017, 03:01:24 AM »
Joe, I am apt to agree with you on that. I feel something more in line with the size of the Alna Center Platform would be appropriate. I guess it would be helpful if it could move, but if we really put our thinking caps on and determine a final location, that would be great. I think your intention for the platforms was for them to be temporary and moveable, like for a special event, so maybe we could use one of those in the meantime.

Meanwhile, Wayne, thank you for the very detailed email regarding freight shipment and routing! Your explanation was great. I can see that information into some sort of graphic organizer. I suspect you and Carl are right about the LCL as well. Perhaps the waybills we have in the Museum's archives will shed some light on that.

I think we need to either split this thread, since we are discussing two different, yet related topics, or change its title to enhancing visitor experiences.

Steve

Ed Lecuyer

  • Administrator
  • Supervisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,783
    • View Profile
    • Historical Topo Maps
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #26 on: July 18, 2017, 11:50:32 AM »
Does anyone have experience building or installing 12V battery powered LED DC lighting systems? I'm looking for someone who has built one.

Steve

Moderator's Note:
Splitting topic from LCL discussion and did not want Steve's question missed.
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum

Ed Lecuyer

  • Administrator
  • Supervisor
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,783
    • View Profile
    • Historical Topo Maps
Re: Less than Carload Freight Shipping/Boxcar Packing
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2017, 12:06:18 PM »
[Moderator's Note]

I think we need to either split this thread, since we are discussing two different, yet related topics, or change its title to enhancing visitor experiences.

Discussion for station platforms and a trail system at TOM is now at:
http://forum.wwfry.org/index.php?topic=2977.0

The existing thread for discussing the land clearing and siding construction at TOM remains at:
http://forum.wwfry.org/index.php?topic=2665.0

There is no thread (currently) to discuss other specific "fascinating destination" ideas/proposals/projects at TOM (including the shingle mill/saw mill complex.) I will add/split them as they come up for discussion.
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum