Date   

Re: RPM Freight Car Presentation Hardware Question

Bill Welch
 

That is my fear Tony. I would like to get by the least expensive way but realize iPad may not work for what I want to do. The repair person I use here for my Apples has second hand machines w/up-to-date OS systems so I may go that route. I am very paranoid about showing up and having some sort of "system/compatibility failure."

Bill Welch


MILW SS Box Car 713406

Lester Breuer
 

I have MILWAUKEE SS Box Car, 713406, an upgraded Accurail kit built, in paint and weathered.  I have posted photos and writeup including changes from kit,  paint, etc. on my blog I started to share photos and writeup on Freight Cars, etc. of modeling projects on my Minneapolis & Northland Railroad Company.   If you would like to take a look please do at the following:

 

http://mnrailroadcab100.blogspot.com/

Lester Breuer


Re: RPM Freight Car Presentation Hardware Question

Tony Thompson
 

Bill Welch wrote:

The Apple Laptop I have used for years for my annual RPM Freight Car presentations has finally given up and I want to replace it. I no longer think I need a full-blown computer and may replace it with an iPad if this type of device will work for doing presentations. I use Apple’s “Keynote” to build my presentations and then convert it to a high resolution PDF for the actual presentation. There are some hardware/connectivity issues I need to answer since the iPad only has one connection port and even with adaptors not sure if my plan is realistic.

—iPad needs to communicate with the projector. There are Blue Tooth Dongles to facilitate this but frankly I would prefer a hardwired connection. Researching for an adapter. My concern here is that venues like Cocoa Beach, Collinsville and Chicagoland probably have projectors requiring a cord.


      A couple of years ago I tried to use my iPad for giving talks, and as Bill mentions, the connection to projectors is quite variable. Sometimes I also could not get the iPad to start the talk properly. I have gone back to using my laptop.
      Remember, the iPad is NOT a effectively a computer. It has considerably less flexibility and access to machine functions, so it's much more difficult to correct any misbehavior or surprise events.

Tony Thompson             Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705         www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; e-mail, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history






Re: RPM Freight Car Presentation Hardware Question

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

With C&OHS most presentations are made with the hotel's projectors.  Therefore we put all PPT's on one "nerds" PC the day before and dry-run the PPT's with the projector.  We have folks still working on Windows 7 Pro so we use the "oldest" software to be compatible.


Al Kresse

On May 24, 2018 at 1:46 PM Bill Welch <fgexbill@...> wrote:

I am hoping there may be people here that have experience using Apple’s iPad that will comment on the questions I have.

The Apple Laptop I have used for years for my annual RPM Freight Car presentations has finally given up and I want to replace it. I no longer think I need a full-blown computer and may replace it with an iPad if this type of device will work for doing presentations. I use Apple’s “Keynote” to build my presentations and then convert it to a high resolution PDF for the actual presentation. There are some hardware/connectivity issues I need to answer since the iPad only has one connection port and even with adaptors not sure if my plan is realistic.

—iPad needs to communicate with the projector. There are Blue Tooth Dongles to facilitate this but frankly I would prefer a hardwired connection. Researching for an adapter. My concern here is that venues like Cocoa Beach, Collinsville and Chicagoland probably have projectors requiring a cord.

—I would like to use the new’ish Logitech “Spotlight Presentation Remote” with its ability to easily spotlight things on each slide when desired while also providing remote advance of slides. (see Ted Culotta’s blog item about this device: http://prototopics.blogspot.com/2018/02/logitech-spotlight-presentation-remote.html) Trying to sort out if the remote can talk to the iPad without an adaptor

I am curious if anyone here has used an iPad for their presentations and can comment on what I have described as my preferences using it? It may be more appropriate to respond to me offline: fgexbill(at)tampabay.rr.com

Thank you,

Bill Welch


RPM Freight Car Presentation Hardware Question

Bill Welch
 

I am hoping there may be people here that have experience using Apple’s iPad that will comment on the questions I have.

The Apple Laptop I have used for years for my annual RPM Freight Car presentations has finally given up and I want to replace it. I no longer think I need a full-blown computer and may replace it with an iPad if this type of device will work for doing presentations. I use Apple’s “Keynote” to build my presentations and then convert it to a high resolution PDF for the actual presentation. There are some hardware/connectivity issues I need to answer since the iPad only has one connection port and even with adaptors not sure if my plan is realistic.

—iPad needs to communicate with the projector. There are Blue Tooth Dongles to facilitate this but frankly I would prefer a hardwired connection. Researching for an adapter. My concern here is that venues like Cocoa Beach, Collinsville and Chicagoland probably have projectors requiring a cord.

—I would like to use the new’ish Logitech “Spotlight Presentation Remote” with its ability to easily spotlight things on each slide when desired while also providing remote advance of slides. (see Ted Culotta’s blog item about this device: http://prototopics.blogspot.com/2018/02/logitech-spotlight-presentation-remote.html) Trying to sort out if the remote can talk to the iPad without an adaptor

I am curious if anyone here has used an iPad for their presentations and can comment on what I have described as my preferences using it? It may be more appropriate to respond to me offline: fgexbill(at)tampabay.rr.com

Thank you,

Bill Welch


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Nelson Moyer
 

Al, the Q waycar trucks in Ed’s photos are the standard Q waycar trucks. I think I remember they were classed #7 by the Q. They had an oak plank at the top, and they had solid bearings. Crews liked them because they gave a smoother ride than the Barber caboose trucks. I don’t believe they were considered high speed, though they were used on hot shot freights between Chicago and Denver. The branchline mixed trains hardly operated at high speed. The highest speed limit on the Burlington-Washington branch was only 25 mph according to the 1943 employee timetable, and that’s the earliest one I have. I think it was higher in the 1930s when passenger traffic was more active, but even then it probably wasn’t over 35 mph.

 

Nelson Moyer

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:24 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

This caboose had high speed trucks?  Would that allow for higher mixed-train speeds?

 

Al kresse

On May 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM "Ed Rethwisch via Groups.Io" <edreth1@...> wrote:

The CB&Q had a limited number of side door cabooses ( waycars) but one of the    

side door cars was assigned to Fort Madison for many decades for branch line service.

 

Ed Rethwisch,


 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Douglas Harding
 

Al most CBQ wood cabooses road on wood beam trucks, that looked very similar to passenger car trucks. Some were later fitted with Allied trucks. The later steel cabooses road on more traditional cast steel caboose trucks.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:24 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

This caboose had high speed trucks?  Would that allow for higher mixed-train speeds?

 

Al kresse

On May 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM "Ed Rethwisch via Groups.Io" <edreth1@...> wrote:

The CB&Q had a limited number of side door cabooses ( waycars) but one of the    

side door cars was assigned to Fort Madison for many decades for branch line service.

 

Ed Rethwisch,


 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

This caboose had high speed trucks?  Would that allow for higher mixed-train speeds?


Al kresse

On May 24, 2018 at 9:37 AM "Ed Rethwisch via Groups.Io" <edreth1@...> wrote:

The CB&Q had a limited number of side door cabooses ( waycars) but one of the    
side door cars was assigned to Fort Madison for many decades for branch line service.

Ed Rethwisch,


 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Ed Rethwisch
 

The CB&Q had a limited number of side door cabooses ( waycars) but one of the    
side door cars was assigned to Fort Madison for many decades for branch line service.

Ed Rethwisch,


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 pm, Merlyn Lauber wrote:
I believe the Side Door Ban on the IC cabooses in Iowa was an old Union rule
Considering I can find no Iowa statute that specifically mentions side doors, I'm beginning to think the "ban" was self imposed by the IC, either in response to union pressure or because they had to pay a whopping injury settlement (which would have been imposed by the Iowa state courts and could be the basis urban legend that it's a "law".) I did find a citation to the 1911 statute I linked to the other day in the 1946 court case Fleming vs. Richardson , the complaint being: On complaint of a trainmen's association that the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railway Company was violating section 7972 of the 1939 Code of Iowa, by operating caboose cars on its railroads in Iowa, with but one platform, but no references to side doors. I also found a citation to the 1911 statute in a list of current (2018) Iowa law, but with the disclaimer that the list on the web site may be out of date.

More for general information, and more pertinent to the recent discussion of four wheel cabooses, is this compilation of state laws governing cabooses as of December, 1912. Caboose Laws

Dennis Storzek

 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Merlyn Lauber
 

I believe the Side Door Ban on the IC cabooses in Iowa was an old Union rule which was due to a safety concern that a crew member could fall out of the open door. I think this was changed in the early 50's and we have photos and have seen the "side door" cabooses throughout Iowa after that. I have seen photos of a crew member setting in the open door. This was discussed and presented at a Clinic some years ago at one of the meets. When we have a railfan show and an IC 'side door" caboose comes on the screen, someone in the audience almost always says "there's another side door that's not allowed in Iowa".

Merlyn Lauber

----- Original Message -----
From: Douglas Harding <doug.harding@iowacentralrr.org>
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Sent: Wed, 23 May 2018 22:57:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

The IC did run side door cabooses in Iowa. But I understand, when they did use them in Iowa, the side doors were required to be bolted or welded shut so they could not be opened. The IC cabooses had sidedoors that were half height, the doors did not reach the floor. I heard this was so a crew member could sit on the bench an safely pick up hooped orders without standing on the platform. But so far I have not been able to find anything to verify the Iowa ban, only modeler’s and railfans speculations.



The M&StL had several sidedoor cabooses, I have photos of four different ones. The photo of M&StL sidedoor caboose #1186, was taken by William Armstrong in McCallsburg IA in 1941. A photo of 1306 was taken Marshalltown IA in 1948. (I believe that attached color photo was taken later).



Drover cabooses or cars are a different animal.



Doug Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org



From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]



Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers? Were there more bunk spaces?



Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@midwest.net> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa. I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law. Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa.

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses. All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL



On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Douglas Harding
 

The IC did run side door cabooses in Iowa. But I understand, when they did use them in Iowa, the side doors were required to be bolted or welded shut so they could not be opened. The IC cabooses had sidedoors that were half height, the doors did not reach the floor. I heard this was so a crew member could sit on the bench an safely pick up hooped orders without standing on the platform. But so far I have not been able to find anything to verify the Iowa ban, only modeler’s and railfans speculations.

 

The M&StL had several sidedoor cabooses, I have photos of four different ones. The photo of M&StL sidedoor caboose #1186, was taken by William Armstrong in McCallsburg IA in 1941. A photo of 1306 was taken Marshalltown IA in 1948. (I believe that attached color photo was taken later).

 

Drover cabooses or cars are a different animal.

 

Doug  Harding

www.iowacentralrr.org

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of al.kresse
Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2018 8:30 PM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

 

Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers?  Were there more bunk spaces?

 

Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@...> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL

 

On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 

 


 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Walter
 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

al.kresse <water.kresse@...>
 

Did they want to force separate drover cars for the farmers?  Were there more bunk spaces?


Al Kresse

On May 23, 2018 at 9:05 PM Jeffy White <jrwhite@...> wrote:

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL


On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 



 


Re: Side-door Cabooses [was Why Transfer cabooses?]

Jeffrey White
 

This doesn't explain why the IC built different cabooses to operate in Iowa.  I'm not an attorney but in my career as a police officer I read and interpreted statutes all the time and by my reading of the law, the standard IC caboose met all of the requirements of the law.  Yet they built cabooses just like the standard cabooses only without the side doors to run in Iowa. 

It seems to me that there almost had to be something else that caused them to build those Iowa cabooses.  All of the IC literature I have read says side door cabooses were not legal in Iowa.

I wonder what the reason was?

Jeff White

Alma, IL


On 5/23/2018 2:51 PM, Dennis Storzek wrote:
On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 09:19 am, Nelson Moyer wrote:

I’m pretty sure that Iowa did not ban side door waycars in any form.

But they did require end platforms. This link should take you to the announcement of the 1911 law:
Caboose Cars

I was also interested to learn that Lorenzo S. Coffin, the railroad safety crusader from the late nineteenth century, was an Iowa state railroad commissioner.

Dennis Storzek

 

 



Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

John Riddell
 

Hi Bob

 

Unfortunately your question does not have a concise answer. 

 

CN purchased 3,185 of the steel 8-hatch reefers in 14 batches from 1940 to 1958.

There were many visual differences so to get an appreciation you will need to look at the article by Swain and Goslett in the RMC January 1996 issue for a list of the visual  differences.  

 

CP purchased 3,102 steel 8-hatch reefers in 17 batches from 1936 to 1956.

Similarly there were many visual differences. To get an appreciation you will need to look at the article by the same authors in the RMC December 1995 issue for a list of the visual  differences.  

 

John Riddell

 

 

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

 


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Dave,

I have one #1700 undecorated "standard style" 50' PD car. Contact me off-list if you want this: sarahsan_AT_embarqmail.com.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿

On 5/23/18 7:22 PM, Dave Boss wrote:
Thanks folks  for all the info on branchline kits. I was looking for a couple undec standard 50ft plug dr cars not GARX versions. I think BL made two different types?, for a kit bash starting point. Was also interested in some 40ft undec box cars for some other projects. Thanks Dave


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Dave Boss
 

Thanks folks  for all the info on branchline kits. I was looking for a couple undec standard 50ft plug dr cars not GARX versions. I think BL made two different types?, for a kit bash starting point. Was also interested in some 40ft undec box cars for some other projects. Thanks Dave


Re: Canadian National Eight-Hatch Reefers

Bill Welch
 

The Funaro & Camerlengo kit of the CN type built into a very satisfying model although I am not sure if mine may have been issued as an RPI kit. It had Dreadnaught ends.

Bill Welch


Re: Branchline /atlas parts

Bill Welch
 

I notice the site has cut the information after the "@" so here it is: atlasrr.com

Bill Welch

24621 - 24640 of 181233