Bob Webber <no17@...>
Tony, of course you are correct. I didn't intend to be lazy and slip in that poor excuse, but was attempting to limit the discussion and try to keep it corralled within the bounds. I should have known the rocket scientist and metallurgist would not let it go. I spoke with Bob LeMassena for a few hours one day about this topic (if you have ever spoke to Bob about steam locomotives, you realize that this qualifies as a short talk). He explained the metal issues (and it is also in his book "Superpower in the Rockies") but he went into it further in person.
As another aside, there were a LOT of improvements that came near the end of steam that showed tremendous promise that had they been followed through might have shown tremendous leaps over then current technology. I'm sure the Pennsy foamers can chime in here. But that too is a trip off the course.
And, as another aside, yes, Richard, my understanding of the Car Construction Committee is less than decent, something that is a result of being more interested in slightly narrower and shorter cars that were running behind steam for a much longer span and having to be more conversant with certain other aspects of certain railroad in order to try to write about it.
My interests in these specific cars have to do with the possibility of finding a car "family" that might be made available for the roads that didn't have large fleets of cars liable to be targets of manufacturer (like, say the AT&SF). From your note though, it seems the approach has already been used. However, I wonder then about tank cars as that is one car type that always seems to be decried as not having proper representation in the model world due to the many variances and the uncertain prototypes so far chosen.
At 02:54 AM 9/16/2005, you wrote:
Message: 15Bob Webber