Date   
Re: Canopy Cement

Charles Happel
 

Has anyone tried what Micro-Mark sells as watch crystal cement? From the description, It sounds similar to what you are describing, and is definitely not white glue.
Chuck Happel

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer. Will Rogers

--------------------------------------------

On Wed, 2/6/19, Todd Sullivan via Groups.Io <sullivant41=yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote:

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Canopy Cement
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Date: Wednesday, February 6, 2019, 10:45 AM

I have been using Barge
cement in the blue tube, available from ACE hardware stores
(may have to special order it, but it's in their
catalog) using the same technique that you use, applied in
sparing amounts with a round toothpick.  It's
bullet-proof, and I have had no problems with roof running
boards or other small parts coming off, even with dissimilar
materials.  I also use it to tack parts in position before
I apply CA, where getting them positioned and aligned is
very tricky.

Todd Sullivan.

Re: Canopy Cement

frograbbit602
 

Brian you have the wrong glue type.

The bottle, yes there is a 2nd one in the back, in the photo is what you want.

Lester Breuer

Re: R-40-26 re: Accurail steel reefers

Bill Welch
 

The hinged door Accurail steel reefer is based on a series owned by Western Fruit Express while those with the Sliding Flush Door are based on a design built by FGE, WFE and BRE. As such they represent the only steel sheathed ice-cooled reefer that shared a common design.

Bill Welch

Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Richard Townsend
 

Adding to what Garth says, I also have found the US Army Transportation Museum at Fort Eustis, VA (Newport News) to be helpful. I went there several years ago and, among other things, they had several Army rail cars outside. I remember a single-dome tank car especially, but there was quite a bit of other equipment there as well. Looking at Google Earth, I don't see the cars stored outside, but there appears to be anew building with RR tracks entering it, so I'm guessing they are displayed inside now. But they also have a library and a helpful staff. I recommend a visit highly. Canadians and other foreigners: give them at least 45 days notice of your visit. All: be prepared for a brief but rigorous screening and vehicle inspection before you're allowed onto the base.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2019 1:45 am
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo


As a former librarian, I would be remiss if I didn't remind all of you that training, maintenance, and shipping manuals for military rail equipment were printed by the War Department and later the DOD. There are U.S. Government Depository Libraries in every state which hold these materials. The University of Virginia (where I worked) was one such library, and although not all the manuals were in their collection, there were still quite a few of interest. The War Department series would be of great use to some on this group. Also of value is the Army Corps of Engineers "Port Series" books, which have detailed information and maps of facilities (including railroads) at US shipping points, and have been updated regularly since series began in the 1930s.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff


Re: Canopy Cement

Jim Betz
 

Brian C.,

  If what you bought was "a Krystal Klear knock off" then it will probably still
work for the purpose you are trying to use it for ... I use KK as an adhesive
all the time and for jobs such as you describe what I would do is to run a
bead of KK across the ribs (not a dot) and do all the rest of what you did.
For it to be "dry" it has to sit, undisturbed with the weight on it, for at LEAST
4 hours and I'd probably leave it for 24 hours. Even with your using very
small amounts of it I would hazard a guess that you tested the bond too
soon.  The drying process for KK goes like this - first it "skins over" but
is still quite rubbery, then it will go clear thru the entire depth of the
product (as I said at least 4 and up to 24 hours) - if there is any haziness
to the product it is not dry and will easily let go. 
  I get why you used very small amounts of the 'glue' ... but for this 
particular use (roof walks) I don't think that was necessary. 

  Personally, I don't object to the 'shiny surface' when it is dry.  Because it
dries clear and so small amounts of "over glue" (using too much) usually
"disappear".  Additionally KK can be painted (or dull coated) and when
that is done any "over glue" will look like a welding seam - if you can find
it!

  One of the best characteristics of KK is that if you want to take the parts
apart you can let some water -sit- on it for at least 30 minutes and I usually
use 1-2 hours and it will soften enough to let go.  Further rinsing/flushing
will get all of the KK off - then dry the part fully and start over.

  I -always- use a round toothpick to apply KK.  You can pick up a small
amount by just dipping the tip into the surface of the KK or you can
shove it down it a half inch more to get a lot.

  KK forms a natural (read "unavoidable") fillet of material where ever two
surfaces being glued meet.  This characteristic is especially useful when
gluing items that don't fit perfectly and/or when more strength is wanted.
Examples are gluing the window shades to the cab roof of a Geep or
when installing grabs in holes that are a bit too big (for this one I dip the
point of the toothpick in the KK and then push it into the hole and twirl
it and finally put the grab into the hole.
  KK is especially useful when joining painted parts such as a detail
part that only has to stay where it is (i.e. does not need a lot of strength)
because once the KK has dried if you don't use water first you will
probably remove some of paint before it lets go - or break one of
the parts on the two sides of the joint.
                                                                                            - Jim B.

  

Re: Military loads - some photos attached

Richard Townsend
 

I've thought more about the 39510 50' flat. One could shorten a Proto2000 or Revell/Con-cor flat and end up with the right 50' length (at least roughly) and the right number of stake pockets. Which one you choose would depend on which better matches the configuration of the prototype's sides. And I forgot about the Tyco 50' flat with 13 stake pockets, which would make a decent stand-in. 

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 7:25 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.

Richard Townsend
Lincoln City, OR


-----Original Message-----
From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>
To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>
Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached

Group,
 
Four photos attached. 
 
What would be the best HO model to represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to be 8-53.
 
The newspaper clipping is from my hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft. Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee Central line.
I realize it’s way out of the group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would be of interest while we’re on this thread.
 
Steve Johnson
 
 
 
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel A. Mitchell
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.
 
I found a photo on the internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.
 
 
Unfortunately, the ends of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars. Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has normal Buckeye trucks.
 
In an actual shipment the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually there are more blocks and more rods or chains.
 
Anyone have a better photo of this?
 
Dan MItchell
==========
 
 
On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58 AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...> wrote:
 
Your position is reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center 6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.
 
I too have photos of the M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat. The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …
 
1) the M-103 Heavy Tank was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48 Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height … in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have required the lower overall height offered with transport on a depressed-center car.
 
2) For whatever reason the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the length of the vehicle's track, between the track and flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s 6-axle “Roco” flat.
 
3) With the depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a “neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar, and also tear-up the wooden deck.
 
In all cases, the tank is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s Technical Manual clearly states.
 
Tie-down of such a vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like 12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.  Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially crated.
 
Nowadays they seem to use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.
 
Dan Mitchell
========== 
On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21 PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik@...> wrote:
 
I will disagree with Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".

First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103 on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.

Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.  I presume this drawing was presented as a typical loading.

I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla Army 6-axle flats.


Ed

Edward Sutorik
 
 

Re: R-40-26

Brian Carlson
 

Ugh, You are right. It does. I missed that in the decal description.

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of steve_wintner via Groups.Io
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:55 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] R-40-26

 

I thought Ted's post suggested an Accurail car. How close is it? Clearly one could do a little work to upgrade the grabs and such?

Steve

Re: R-40-26

steve_wintner
 

I thought Ted's post suggested an Accurail car. How close is it? Clearly one could do a little work to upgrade the grabs and such?

Steve

Re: Tackboard dimensions

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 12:04 AM, Tony Thompson wrote:
     The term "tackboard" is ambiguous, though I am pretty sure people mean "placard board." (For actual terminology, see the Dictionary section of any Cyc.) These boards were normally about 18 x 24 inches in size.

That became the ARA recommendation. Someone mentioned the square  placard boards used by the NYC (and NKP, but this may have been a carryover on Lake Erie & Western equipment ordered while that road was still under NYC control). The NYC placards boards are 18" square with the boards vertical.

Dennis Storzek

Re: Canopy Cement

Todd Sullivan
 

I have been using Barge cement in the blue tube, available from ACE hardware stores (may have to special order it, but it's in their catalog) using the same technique that you use, applied in sparing amounts with a round toothpick.  It's bullet-proof, and I have had no problems with roof running boards or other small parts coming off, even with dissimilar materials.  I also use it to tack parts in position before I apply CA, where getting them positioned and aligned is very tricky.

Todd Sullivan.

Re: Canopy Cement

Brian Carlson
 

Thanks Ben. I am familiar with Tony’s blog. I was afraid the hobby shop owner sold me a product that wasn’t actually what I was looking for, and it turns out that is the case.  I’ll have to look for some online.

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

 

 

 

From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io> On Behalf Of Benjamin Hom
Sent: Wednesday, February 6, 2019 10:32 AM
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Canopy Cement

 

Brian Carlson asked:

"So my question is the product the problem, or is it my application method?"

 

Not the same stuff.  The Testors product looks to be their version of Microscale Krystal Klear, which is more a version of white glue.  The stuff you want is manufactured by Pacer, Wilhold, or Zap.  More information from Tony's blog at

 

 

Ben Hom

Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
 

Gene,

As noted, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Chile and Argentina use 5' 6"/66"/1,676 mm. The South Asian countries had the gauge imposed upon them by the British Raj. IIRC, Chile and Argentina had at least part of their rail system developed by British investors/contractors.

Russia, and other states of the former Soviet Union use 5'/60"/1520 mm gauge, a leftover from Imperial Russia which chose this gauge to blunt feared European invasions. This gauge was used in Panama, from the 1850s when US investors built that country's first railway as a portage to avoid sailing around Cape Horn to get to the California gold rush. This gauge was continued with the Panama Canal project. I thought Panama still used 5', but according to Wikipedia the line was rebuilt to standard gauge in 2001. The electric mules that still haul ships through the canal locks remain 5' gauge.

Spain and Portugal use the so called "Iberian gauge" of 5' 5 1/2" or 1,668 mm, though I have no idea why.

We are getting far away from US freight cars, so this will be my last comment on gauges, unless it comes up again in the US Army context.

Yours Aye,


Garth Groff

On 2/6/19 9:52 AM, Gene Green via Groups.Io wrote:
Sixty inch gauge is Russia and Spain but where is 66" in use or was in use?

Re: Canopy Cement

Benjamin Hom
 

Brian Carlson asked:
"So my question is the product the problem, or is it my application method?"

Not the same stuff.  The Testors product looks to be their version of Microscale Krystal Klear, which is more a version of white glue.  The stuff you want is manufactured by Pacer, Wilhold, or Zap.  More information from Tony's blog at


Ben Hom

Re: Canopy Cement

Paul Doggett
 

Brian 

I use Formula 560 canopy glue and have had excellent results with it. Try eBay for it.

Paul Doggett England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 


On 6 Feb 2019, at 15:20, Brian Carlson via Groups.Io <prrk41361@...> wrote:

Several list members have extoled the vitures of canopy cement. I bought a bottle late last year at the local hobby shop. I’ve had abysmal luck with it so far using it to attach roofwalks to roofs. My application method has been to apply a tiny dollop to each roof saddle and the press the roofwalk down, and hold the roofwalk in place with light pressure while it dries.  Once dry the roofwalks then proceed to fall off the roof with the slightest touch. I also don’t like that the product dries very shiny but that is a minor annoyance.

 

The product I was sold was Testor’s Clear parts and window maker Amazon link to show the product. https://www.amazon.com/Testor-Model-Master-Cement-Window/dp/B0006NDZDU

 

So my question is the product the problem, or is it my application method?

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

 

Canopy Cement

Brian Carlson
 

Several list members have extoled the vitures of canopy cement. I bought a bottle late last year at the local hobby shop. I’ve had abysmal luck with it so far using it to attach roofwalks to roofs. My application method has been to apply a tiny dollop to each roof saddle and the press the roofwalk down, and hold the roofwalk in place with light pressure while it dries.  Once dry the roofwalks then proceed to fall off the roof with the slightest touch. I also don’t like that the product dries very shiny but that is a minor annoyance.

 

The product I was sold was Testor’s Clear parts and window maker Amazon link to show the product. https://www.amazon.com/Testor-Model-Master-Cement-Window/dp/B0006NDZDU

 

So my question is the product the problem, or is it my application method?

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

 

Re: Military loads - some photos attached

John Barry
 

Sighted yesterday at Washington Union Station one of the former USAX heavy duty flats.




John Barry
 
ATSF North Bay Lines 
Golden Gates & Fast Freights 
Lovettsville, VA


707-490-9696 


PO Box 44736 
Washington, DC 20026-4736

--------------------------------------------

On Tue, 2/5/19, Richard Townsend via Groups.Io <richtownsend=netscape.net@groups.io> wrote:

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos attached
To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
Date: Tuesday, February 5, 2019, 10:25 PM










For the 38000 series cars with 6-wheel trucks
the Roco flat would be the best available. I can't
suggest a model for the 39510 and the others in its series
with 4-wheel trucks. It has 14 stake pockets per side and
appears to say its length is 50 feet. Both the Proto2000 and
Revell/Con-cor flats have 15 stake pockets, and both are
longer than 50 feet. The Athearn 50' flat has 13 stake
pockets as does the old Cox 50' flat.









Richard Townsend





Lincoln City, OR















-----Original
Message-----

From: Steven D Johnson <tenncentralrwy@...>

To: main <main@RealSTMFC.groups.io>

Sent: Tue, Feb 5, 2019 5:33 pm

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads - some photos
attached















Group,





 





Four photos attached. 






 





What would be the best HO model to
represent the  39510-type cars? The built date looks to
be 8-53.





 





The newspaper clipping is from my
hometown paper, showing a long string of the 38000-series
cars passing through Hopkinsville, KY, from Ft.
Campbell.  This was on the ICG’s former Tennessee
Central line.





I realize it’s way out of the
group’s time frame, but it does show a bunch of steam
era-built cars, and thought it (and the color photos) would
be of interest while we’re on this thread.





 





Steve Johnson





 





 





 











From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io
[mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Daniel
A. Mitchell

Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2019 11:43 AM

To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io

Subject: Re: [RealSTMFC] Military loads.











 





I found a photo on the
internet showing a T43 (M-103 prototype) on a
depressed-center flatcar like the Roco model.








 























 











Unfortunately, the ends
of the photo are cropped, so the presence or absence of
buffers cannot be determined. The car is clearly lettered
USA and carries the ordinance corps. symbol. The trucks are
older-style Buckeye trucks with external equalizer bars.
Roco got this right … their regular 6-axle USA flat has
normal Buckeye trucks.











 











In an actual shipment
the turret would be reversed and the gun clamped in the
travel-lock shown at the back of the vehicle. Note the
blocking and tie-down rods. Compared to other photos of
M-103’s in transit these seem  inadequate …usually
there are more blocks and more rods or chains.











 











Anyone have a better
photo of this?











 











Dan MItchell











==========











 











 











On Feb 5, 2019, at 9:58
AM, Daniel A. Mitchell <danmitch@...>
wrote:








 











Your position is
reasonable. I do have a loading diagram for the M-103 (or
one of it’s look-alike predecessors) on a depressed-center
6-axle flat that appears identical to the Roco model.








 











I too have photos of the
M-103 loaded on the standard Army 6-axle “Roco" flat.
The weight of the tank (about 65 tons) is well within the
car’s 100-ton capacity.  Related issues are …











 











1) the M-103 Heavy Tank
was substantially taller than it’s smaller cousin the M-48
Medium Tank. I suspect the issue may be overall height …
in olden days with tighter clearance some movements may have
required the lower overall height offered with transport on
a depressed-center car.











 











2) For whatever reason
the M-103 was often loaded on huge timbers running the
length of the vehicle's track, between the track and
flatcar deck. these were 8"-10” thick. This raised
the height of the load by the same amount. Why? To spread
weight? To reduce damage to the flatcar’s deck? Such
timbers were often, but not always, used with the Army’s
6-axle “Roco” flat.











 











3) With the
depressed-center car loading would be more of an issue. The
tank is almost as long as the depressed center part of the
car. Loading would almost have to be done with an overhead
crane (common anyway). While turning the tank with a
“neutral steer” (pivot) might have been possible, it
would likely result in some huge stresses to the flatcar,
and also tear-up the wooden deck.











 











In all cases, the tank
is considerably wider than the flatcar’s deck (this is
also true for the smaller M48-M60 tanks). The tracks
overhang the edge of the deck by about a foot on either
side. Side-clearance issues were a problem as the M-103’s
Technical Manual clearly states.











 











Tie-down of such a
vehicle in the “steam" era consisted of the use of
MANY, large wooden blocks, cut-to fit, and jammed into
several locations … in front and behind the tracks, and
between the road wheels. Cleats along the inside-run of the
tracks prevened side-to side shifting, possibly the use of
large timbers under the tracks (above), and multiple (like
12-16) tie-down rods, chains or cables. Assorted loose items
from the tank’s exterior (“pioneer tools”, machine
guns), spare parts, etc. were packaged in wooden crates and
strapped to the flatcar’s deck. Sometimes the main gun
tube was removed and also packed in a wooden crate.
 Sometimes the whole load was tarped or partially
crated.











 











Nowadays they seem to
use mostly a spider-web of chains (6-8 on each end) and
little or no blocking. The modern flatcars also have
full-length tie-down channels set into the deck.











 











Dan Mitchell











========== 











On Feb 4, 2019, at 5:21
PM, spsalso via Groups.Io <Edwardsutorik=aol.com@groups.io>
wrote:








 








I will disagree with
Dan's statement that "The depressed-center flat is
the transport carrier for the M-103 Heavy Tank...".



First, while there is a photo that appears to show an M-103
on such a car, there is some doubt that the car and load
ever traveled more than a few feet.  There is also
doubt that these cars ever operated in the US.



Second.  The shop manual for the M-103 shows a drawing
of one loaded on the (prototype) non-depressed Roco car.
 I presume this drawing was presented as a typical
loading.



I intend to place my (HO) M-103's on the plain vanilla
Army 6-axle flats.





Ed



Edward Sutorik

R-40-26

Brian Carlson
 

Ted’s Decals for the BAR R-40-26 clone interest me. However, besides the Sunshine model and the Stan R kitbash in a box, neither of which are readily available, what options are there for the car?

 

Brian J. Carlson, P.E.

Cheektowaga NY

 

Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Gene Green <genegreen1942@...>
 

Sixty inch gauge is Russia and Spain but where is 66" in use or was in use?

Re: Military loads - "Roco" depressed center flat for foriegn service - photo

Dennis Storzek
 

On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 01:44 AM, Garth Groff wrote:
It isn't clear if the cars in the photo were made and stored in these gauges, or if the cars were convertible.
My bet is convertible. The key point would be trucks designed to clear wheels spaced to the widest gauge. The cars could have been converted by changing the wheels sets and brake beams before they left the states for their intended destination, or, with the foresight to provide long wheel seats on the axles, just run through the shop to have the wheels pressed to the desired gauge.

Dennis Storzek

Re: Tackboard dimensions

Bill Welch
 

I just checked my unbuilt F&C #8040 and there are no Placard Board parts. I think the theory that these PS&N cars were ex-NYC may not correct if it is the car represented by this kit as it is clearly a Southern SU model. The SRR certainly sold off some of their SU cars as they were also owned by the A&D and L&C.

Regarding NYC Placard Boards prototype photos show that their Placard Boards often/usually featured Vertical Boards and were Square rather than Rectangular.

Bill Welch