Trimming the Fleet

Or is it "culling the herd"?

I've recently been selling off parts of my HO scale freight car fleet in what I call a "rationalization." That's the umbrella term I use for the sale of various cars, both unbuilt kits and assembled models.

This fleet numbered about 190 cars at its highest in 2003, and I was able to get them back through a series of events I won't cover here. However, I chose to seize that opportunity to liquidate certain cars.

My "rationalization" has three parts. The first is disposing of cars that are inappropriate for my long-planned switching layout. That meant cars like the dozen Walthers autoracks I had, and because said switching layout doesn't have a place for them. Moreover, their length means they'd take up too much space on the layout once it's built. Other cars that didn't fit were a couple of cars in a demonstrator paint scheme, which I couldn't justify, either.

I also targeted certain other cars, such as certain covered hoppers. While I probably could strip them and repaint them for something else, I figured someone else may enjoy them, too, so on the market they went.

I also chose to part with certain cars decorated for specific connections to my past. I put up for sale a couple of wood-sided reefers that had been decorated for the Garden State Model Railroad Club's Garden State Northern club layout, because of unpleasant memories associated with the first club to which I belonged.

I also targeted anything connected with CSX or its non-Conrail predecessors, because of that company's desire and program to get rid of me. Fortunately, I had few pieces, which meant I would get rid of them quickly, such as a three-pack of Athearn Center-Flow covered hoppers custom decorated the three Chessie System constituent roads, as well as a factory-decorated pair of 45-foot CSX intermodal trailers. I look at this part of my "fleet rationalization" as a healing step, if nothing else.

The third part is, if it can be called that, a protest against Union Pacific. The "Borg of Railroading" instituted a licensing program that I, as a modeler, felt was ridiculous in general and onerous for hobby manufacturers.

The UP set forth certain stipulations with respect to the use of their intellectual property. While they're within their rights to do so, they actually saw it as a bona fide revenue stream. UP is a billion-dollar freight railroad. They make their money transporting freight, and they wanted licensing fees as a revenue stream? At best, these fees would amount to a negligible portion of their annual revenue as a percentage.

So, in my own little way, I decided to protest this by selling off all my Union Pacific, Southern Pacific, Missouri Pacific, and Chicago & North Western stuff, which also extended to other items such as mugs. Granted, it's not much, but at least it makes me feel better.

There was also a fourth part that wasn't consciously planned: era. Part of this sell-off included cars not suitable for my contemporary era in which my railroad is set. Coincidentally, the GSN reefers were part of that, as were the "Heritage Collection" cars that were offered to NMRA members in the 1990s. These cars were decorated for modelers' railroads of the past, such as John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid and Frank Ellison's Delta Lines. While I thought they would be "interesting," they technically don't fit my layout's concept, so I decided someone else might enjoy them.

I sold the first seventeen cars not on eBay, as I should have done, but on a Yahoo! group created for that purpose, and which was devoted solely to HO scale. However, due to my objection to the way that group's owner ran his group, I bailed shortly after I sold four cars from my second posting to that group.

Instead, I shifted my future sales to eBay, where I was likely to get better exposure for my items.

Say what you will about eBay, but they offer an integrated system for listings, sales management, money receipt and payment, printing shipping labels. That integration makes it extraordinarily easy to track the items one sells.

It also begat an interesting experience with a prospective buyer. I seem to attract the weirdoes, and I don't know why.

I'd listed the three-pack of Chessie System Center-Flows as one auction. One person bid on them shortly after the listing appeared. "Great," I thought, "they'll sell."

Then I got an email from another eBayer asking about local pickup, whether he can pay in cash, etc., as he lived in a town not far from me. Mmm, okay.

We went back and forth as to the neutral location, etc., and in each of my three responses, I mentioned he'd have to be the winning bidder.

I never heard back from him after my third response, nor did he ever bid on those cars.

I inferred two things from the email exchange.

First, he wasn't too bright. I don't think he grasped the idea he was expected to bid on that auction and win it, if he expected to pick them up locally.

Second, I also got the impression, from reading between the lines, he wanted me to end listing early, just so he could have the cars. There already was one bid on them, so there was no way I was going to deprive a legitimate bidder (I never heard from him again after the auction, either.)

For all I know, he was a con artist, looking to scam me.

Lessons Learned

If I could go back in time, I would have listed all of the cars on eBay, for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Another lesson I've learned is the use - value, really - of pictures. Part of the reason some things were not getting the bids I hoped for is that, as I write this, I'm in no position to upload photographs with my listings. However, I've been able to sell a number of items despite this handicap.

Model Railroad Interchange

A few years ago, as I planned my HO scale switching layout, I asked fellow Pacific Southern member Roger Thomas about possibly physically interchanging cars between our layouts, once mine was built. He agreed.

Unfortunately, that plan has stalled for personal reasons, as I was not able to build that layout, due to certain events in my personal life. However, I did not give up on the idea.

It grew out of a suggestion someone made on an online forum, when I asked something about how many cars one needs to be able to replicate traffic flow convincingly. The person's reasoning was that by doing so, one gets access to a larger pool of cars, thus further enhancing the realism.

I also recalled an article I read in Model Railroader about one modeler in Wapakoneta, Ohio, who practiced this, citing a figure of 1,500 cars interchanged per session at the high end, with his operators. I tracked him down to ask him some questions about the process, as well as points to consider. I followed up with a phone call in which he promised to reply to my letter. I'm still waiting.

I don't recall all the points I raised in my letter, but they were legitimate issues. One that comes to mind has to do with what protocols, if any, exist for when one person's car on a host layout is damaged. Relatively minor issues, such as coupler repair or replacement, or truck work, would be handled by the host modeler on whose layout the damage occurred, but what is the protocol in the event the "guest" car takes a dive off the layout and sustains severe damage? The real railroads already have a set of such protocols, so it would be logical to pattern the modelers' one after that.

Another was car forwarding, or more specifically, compatibility between different car-forwarding systems. Roger uses a home-brewed car card system that was probably based on something in the hobby press; I hadn't decided on a system. In that case, how would one convey the routing or destination information? The simplest method is to enclose a sheet of paper with the relevant information, either handwritten or computer-generated. (Of course, this can lead to the question of what to do with the CC&WB for cars that are "in process," in that the cars have not cycled through their waybills.)

Another question is more practical: if a "visiting" car has the same reporting marks as a "home" car, what does one do? My initial solution, other than to maintain a large database, is to give the "guest" car priority in handling to minimize the time away from its owner. However, this also means one has to locate the duplicate "home" car and remove it from the layout for the duration the visiting car is on that layout.

The whole idea proved really intriguing to me the more I thought about it. Imagine expanding the group beyond the initial two modelers. The pool of cars grows dramatically, with all sorts of increased opportunities for traffic destinations. This truly excited me, for several reasons; I've already named one.

Another is how it can potentially benefit participating modelers. All of a sudden, a modeler with a large fleet of, say, grain cars, has a place to send them other than to a hidden yard or storage, and cars have a greater territory over which to roam.

It also alters the whole "paired industries" concept. Under this, a shipper and receiver (consignee) are found on the same layout, such as a lumber mill and lumber yard, coal mine and power plant, etc. Yet this isn't necessarily realistic or practical, depending on the size of the layout, so extending the paired-industries concept over two or more layouts further enhances the realism.

I'll give you an example, again based on my planned switching layout.

At one point, I envisioned a plastics molding company on an extension of my layout, called Torben Plastics. That's great, but what does it make? Well, Roger has an automobile plant on his layout, and Torben could be a supplier, supplying the various plastic items found in today's automobiles, whether it's dashboards, door panels, head- and taillight assemblies, or whatever. It receives both empty auto parts boxcars and loaded covered hoppers. The cars are switched out based on the car cards and waybills, and ultimately interchanged back to Roger. The boxcars go to his auto plant, and the covered hoppers "elsewhere," to be "reloaded" to repeat the process. In the meantime, more cars are interchanged to my layout for distribution to my consignees. And, depending on the routing, one's cars might have to roll over two or three layouts to get to their ultimate destinations on another member's layout.

It means one's cars could potentially be out for a protracted period, but at the same time, that same modeler will have an influx of cars from other members of his group.

I also got to thinking about other practical matters that are found in this concept, such as physically swapping cars. How would this be accomplished: in person? Via mail?

The former is pretty easy, whereas to ship the models, one must worry about packing them to prevent damage. Sending them requires a sturdy container, preferably reusable, packing material, and so forth.

The idea is not without precedent, as modelers have interchanged cars over the years. Some have been informal exchanges, whereas others have been more structured. The National Model Railroad Association (NMRA) has/had such a car exchange for some time, though I don't know much about it. German modeler Wolfgang Dudler, who owns the Westport Terminal (at http://www.westportterminal.de), participated in an informal one that concentrates on private roads, with photographs of these cars shared with their owners.

Way back in the mid-1990s, I found a group on America Online (AOL) that discussed this, and I received a newsletter. The group's acronym was TRAIN, though I don't recall what it stood for, and the first two issues were emails. The third issue was sent out as a PDF attachment. Alas, the third issue was the group's final newsletter, as the person behind the effort was killed in a construction accident. Prior to this person's death, another member had begun work on a computer program that would help match up members with whom to interchange cars, taking into account one's scale.

There is also the matter of frequency. An imbalance will arise if one of the modelers operates his layout monthly, and another does it weekly. That imbalance will create a backlog, especially if the weekly-operating modeler - whom I'll call "John" - has the monthly-operator ("Bob") as his interchange partner. The problem affects both, but in unique ways.

For "Bob," that means he'll have a veritable flood of cars being interchanged to him. Then, when he gets to operating his layout, he'll have a large quantity of cars to handle, both coming to him and going out to his "connections."

For "John," it's worse, I suppose, because his outbound cars will quickly drain his supply as he waits for "Bob" to send him more cars. And, he will also have to suffer a substantial influx of cars coming to him from "Bob."

The nice thing, though, is that such ebbs and flows tend to balance out over time. However, they still exist when dealing with only two modelers.

One solution is for the two modelers to reach a middle ground, such as operating biweekly, to help smooth out such imbalances.

Another is to introduce a third modeler, "Tom," who could probably function as a "relief valve" of sorts when these kinds of situations present themselves. "Tom" and "John" could interchange between themselves when "Bob" isn't operating, under the premise those cars have "run" over "Bob's" layout, and while it works as a solution, it also means cars on "Bob's" layout that are due to interchange to either "Tom" or "John" won't be picked up and forwarded to either layout.

I also figure some kind of industry directory would be helpful, perhaps something patterned after a prototype guide, to help the modelers plan where to forward cars as part of their operations. It should also have restrictions, such as not being able to handle cars beyond a certain length, what offloading and loading equipment might be present, etc., all as appropriate.

So what do you think? Comments are enabled, so feel free to share your thoughts.