Re: AC&F type 19 tank cars?


Richard Hendrickson
 

On Apr 4, 2008, at 12:31 PM, Tony Thompson wrote:

Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Helpful though the type designations are, AC&F's use of them wasn't
always consistent and is occasionally puzzling.
As Mr. Kaminski has explained, the AC&F types were a kind of
default standard at any particular time, but buyers could and did
purchase the underframe they wanted; and if for some reason the
current
standard type was not suitable for a customer's tank cars, AC&F would
modify it accordingly. It was a flexible, internal standard (and for
underframes only, as many people know by now, not for tanks), so to
accuse AC&F of inconsistent or puzzling usage seems to me an odd
observation.













Point well taken. What I should have said is that, to an outside
observer, AC&F's practice doesn't always appear consistent and is
occasionally puzzling.

Richard Hendrickson

Join main@RealSTMFC.groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.