Patrick Wider <pwider@...>
--- In STMFC@..., timboconnor@c... wrote:
Tim, I just can't figure out what's so wrong with using historically correct terms. It's
certainly more desireable than being historically incorrect. Using a correct term, if one
exists, is more desireable than using a phony baloney one that's "cute" or "clever" or made
so obvious even an idiot can figure it out. Of course, the guy that invented it likes it best
(gosh I'm so smart) and tries to promote it whenever he can.
PS-0 while clever, is incorrect (no basis in fact) and illogical, here's why:
- a PS-4 is a Pullman-Standard flat car
- a PS-3 is a Pullman-Standard open hopper car
- a PS-2 is a Pullman-Standard covered hopper car, and
- a PS-1 is a Pullman-Standard box car.
So methinks a PS-0 must be something other than one of the above, certainly not another
box car. A Pullman-Standard refrigerator car?
The problem with all of this modeler's made up stuff is, years from now, myth will be
confused with or substituted for fact. The original intent or genesis will be long forgotten.
History will be corrupted irreversibly. Someone will do a search for "PS-0 box cars" and
find nothing or find some made-up myth. I found it on the internet, it must be true!!!!
Most subscribers to this list get real concerned about duplicating accurate colors,
dimensions, series numbers, weathering, trucks, doors, couplers, wheels, running boards,
hand brakes, etc. So, why not use accurate or correct terms when they exist? - (underline
when they exist) - Why make them up? Let's be consistent with what this list is all about.
While researching passenger car trucks, I came across a phony baloney Pullman truck
nomenclature that a modeler made up. It was being substituted in several publications for
the real Pullman nomenclature and had acquired a life of its own. It's now taken as gospel
in some quarters. And there was no real need for it. If we're going to stay above the
ready-to-run crowd (aka bozos), why not use the correct terms when they exist?
Richard Hendrickson insists we not call a running board a "roof walk." Ben Hom insists we
not call a PRR X29 an X-29. Tony Thompson has killed numerous historical myths
concerning refrigerator cars. It's all consistent. (They are welcome to carry the baton
Having said all of that, I now can't wait to build a "Tan Dot" model of a PRR X-23 (sic)
outside-braced (sic) box car with a wood roof walk (sic), round polling pockets (sic), a
triple valve (sic), wire hand grabs (sic), Andrews trucks with friction bearings (sic), and cast
iron wheels with cooling ribs (sic). Once finished, I think I'll paint it some color. I think box
car red (sic) "sounds" correct. After that, I think I'll build an accurate model of a Boeing
fighting flying gadget (sic) pushed along (sic) by those flame shooter outer thingees (sic).
Ugh! I can't continue this any longer, it's making me sick! See yah!
BTW: don't expect a reply since I'm not going to argue this any further. I'm done.
Proud to be a member and sponsor of the "Historically Approved Terminology Committee"
(HATC) as you call it. RP CYC will continue to use and advocate correct terms whenever
they are applicable. I prefer to educate rather than obfuscate.