Date   

Re: No full-proof copy protection

John Patterson <bongomonkey05@...>
 

Okay Fellas;With few exceptions,I hardly think the "Copyright Police"are
gonna do a "David Koresh/Waco"style raid if you download a pitcure by a long
dead photographer for your own use!!

On 5/12/06, Dave Nelson <muskoka@comcast.net> wrote:

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Whether new copyright rules
will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright
protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually
known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic
copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to
corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back.

Indeed.

IMO the current term of copyright is an obscenity. These words that I'm
writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for the
term
of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The Cure For
Cancer",
when discovered, will get 17 years, less however long it takes the FDA to
get around to saying it's ok to sell. Somebody explain to my why this
posting gets lifespan+75 years and some drug gets fewer than 17.

I'll be honest here: I have no respect for any of the recent changes in
copyright law, specifically if it is held by the corporations who pressed
for these changes. So I download music and I download video and have no
guilt whatsoever for doing so (FWIW I also buy music and video).

As for other stuff... For me: 28 years, period. I don't give a plugged
nickle for the notion somebody can copyright today a creative work that's
more than 28 years old. 28-56 years old? Did it have meaningful value at
the half way point? If I figure it did, I figure it got renewed (only
about
15% of what was copyrighted ever got extended). Otherwise I figure it
lapsed and is in the public domain.

Moving on to freight cars and such. I do respect the property value of
persons/libraries/museums who have found something interesting and want to
sell copies to the general public. Doesn't matter to me if it is under
copyright or not, I respect the seller for what they're doing and so in
this
regard, I do follow a different set of rules and so I *do not* go into the
replication business using their product.

Yeah, hard to square the circle of these paragraphs in any principled way,
except perhaps by looking at who is doing the selling, respecting the
little
guy, and sticking to the law as it was when it made sense.

I'm just being open and frank here...getting something off my chest so to
speak and not looking to debate anything.

Dave Nelson
P.S. Shawn, sorry to say it bud, but f*ck Disney for what they did.




SPONSORED LINKS
Train travel<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Train+travel&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=tE9uU3Es1d2edJS-KZEKqg> Train
travel uk<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Train+travel+uk&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=edcaK_n4EwTQYjeOx11UPA> Train
travel in usa<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Train+travel+in+usa&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=Gk8xNGzua79PhA4d81evPA> Train
travel vacation<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Train+travel+vacation&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=jvydR-heeen6fWEU71MSyA> Freight
car<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Freight+car&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=R4YBAHDo68zYkL4JcWHeZw> Canada
train travel<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Canada+train+travel&w1=Train+travel&w2=Train+travel+uk&w3=Train+travel+in+usa&w4=Train+travel+vacation&w5=Freight+car&w6=Canada+train+travel&c=6&s=133&.sig=RqVJtLSTtN6-xUYPSnJd4A>
------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS


- Visit your group "STMFC <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC>" on
the web.

- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<STMFC-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>

- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.


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


Re: Fair use and the sharing of information

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/13/2006 2:15:07 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
thompson@signaturepress.com writes:

I have usually asked people not to videotape my presentations
because I do not have the rights to give them copies of many photos I
use. A lot of these folks act very irritated when I say this. I must
admit that if they only use the videotape for personal enjoyment, it
is not a problem, but I have no way to know they are not going to show
it at their club, make copies for distant friends, or put clips on the
internet. Maybe I should make up a permission form, specifying
forbidden uses, and ask them to sign it <g>. This would REALLY be
popular.



Tony,

Rather than you being the "bad" guy, would it not be better if the event
organizers prohibit unauthorized video taping of all presentations. On the
other hand, since you are in demand as a presenter would it not be feasible for
you to make it a condition of your participation that no video taping of your
presentation be permitted. (this would also apply to other "in demand"
presenters.) If such information was provided beforehand in the announcement of
the event or other event related literature, no one can complain or claim they
did not know.

Rich Orr


Speedwitch UP Boxcars?

paulbizier <pa.bizier@...>
 

Does any one know what the status on the UP boxcars from Speedwitch
is? I know at one point Ted was having issues with the castings, but
haven't heard anything in the past 3-4 weeks...

Paul


Obscure Box Car

r_versailles
 

Hello,
While I'm reasonably sure that this is not a "real" box car, I thought
that perhaps the members of this list might have information that
might be useful to me.
I've agreed to build an old kit for a friend, wood craftsman type
(remember those????), of a box car lettered "Phartz & Howe Baked
Beans". I know that I've seen these in the past, and actually found
one in my "To Do" box of kits.
My question is, does anyone know how these cars were painted? My
friend's kit had incomplete instructions, mine has complete
instructions, but I see no notation on painting top, ends, doors, and
underframe. The side are orange w/white lettering. If no one has
other info, I'm going to paint those parts black, or perhaps doors and
ends in orange also, if I can match paint.
What type trucks would be appropriate? This is going to be sort of a
joke, slipped onto a friends railroad during an operating session, and
to provide traffic to a packing house.
Rudy Versailles
Westfield, MA


Re: FREIGHT CARS?

bobbypitts44 <bobbypitts44@...>
 

I lost my TRAIN of thought! (pun intended) Bobby Pitts

As soon as you post something about freight cars. :-)

Pete


_____________________________________________________
Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis)
Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com
(wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr)



_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of
bobbypitts44
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:10 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] FREIGHT CARS?


Just curious, when are we going to start talking about FREIGHT CARS
again? Bobby Pitts





Re: ADMIN: Copyright Discussions Associated Only With the STMFC

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Mike Brock wrote:
Dave Nelson writes:

These words that I'm
writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for
the term of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The
Cure For Cancer", when discovered, will get 17 years, less however
long it takes the FDA to get around to saying it's ok to sell.
Somebody explain to my why this posting gets lifespan+75 years and
some drug gets fewer than 17.
No...Somebody should NOT explain the differences.
Umm, I wasn't actually expecting a response as there is no fair response to
the question. But that said, yeah, you're right... off topic tangent...
sorry.

Dave Nelson


Re: Fair use and the sharing of information

Jon Miller <atsf@...>
 

Guess
I can show images of protected material in the presentation but
can't include them in the handouts. Can o' worms!<
And this brings up another interesting thought. My clinic at PCR was
video taped! One of the evenings were we having a discussion about people coping clinics right off of the presenters computer. Tony should remember this and have some thoughts as it pertains to copyright!

Jon Miller
AT&SF
For me time has stopped in 1941
Digitrax, Chief/Zephyr systems, JMRI user
NMRA Life member #2623
Member SFRH&MS


Burlington 50' RBBX boxcars

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I am building a BLT model of RBBX 79072, 50' plug door boxcar, built June of
1957, green with yellow stripe paint scheme. I want to replace the BLT
roofwalk with an after market part. What type of roofwalk was installed on
these cars. Also, what types of trucks did the prototype have. Thanks in
advance.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


ADMIN: Copyright Discussions Associated Only With the STMFC

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Dave Nelson writes:

These words that I'm
writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for the term
of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The Cure For Cancer",
when discovered, will get 17 years, less however long it takes the FDA to
get around to saying it's ok to sell. Somebody explain to my why this
posting gets lifespan+75 years and some drug gets fewer than 17.
No...Somebody should NOT explain the differences. The discussion regarding copyright and/or property rights on the STMFC is restricted to their application to the STMFC. As so often happens, an issue tangential to the original issue always seems to pop up. The STMFC is NOT the forum to discuss the reasons, justifications or explanations about copyright or property right law EXCEPT as they pertain to the use of photos on the STMFC. I realize that members might well have sincere and personal grievances with the copyright laws but the STMFC is not the place for such. The LICEN Yahoo Group was developed to discuss trade mark issues with regard to UP and while it was not generated to discuss copyright, that subject HAS been discussed there and would not normally be out of scope there [ I can say that because I'm the judge there as well ].

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


Re: Digest Number 3138

James Eckman
 

Subject: [STMFC] Preventing downloading images, was Re: ADMIN: STMFC Photo
Policy

I guess you mean that if you see it on the screen, it's in your temp folder?
No, but there's still ways of getting it off the screen. If it can be seen, it can be downloaded. If this can cause problems for the list, please don't post them in the list archives.

It's possible that usage on this list might constitute fair use but that's a tricky subject to say the least.

Jim Eckman


Re: FREIGHT CARS?

Pete Brown \(YahooGroups\) <YahooLists@...>
 

As soon as you post something about freight cars. :-)

Pete


_____________________________________________________
Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis)
Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com
(wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr)



_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
bobbypitts44
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 9:10 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] FREIGHT CARS?


Just curious, when are we going to start talking about FREIGHT CARS
again? Bobby Pitts


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Dave Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
Whether new copyright rules
will eventually provide a balance between personal use and copyright
protection is unclear. The "Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually
known as the Copyright Term Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic
copyright errs, in my view, in totally subsuming fair use to
corporate protection. I hope the pendulum swings back.

Indeed.

IMO the current term of copyright is an obscenity. These words that I'm
writing are automatically protected under current copyright law for the term
of my life plus 75 YEARS. Whereas a patent for, say, "The Cure For Cancer",
when discovered, will get 17 years, less however long it takes the FDA to
get around to saying it's ok to sell. Somebody explain to my why this
posting gets lifespan+75 years and some drug gets fewer than 17.

I'll be honest here: I have no respect for any of the recent changes in
copyright law, specifically if it is held by the corporations who pressed
for these changes. So I download music and I download video and have no
guilt whatsoever for doing so (FWIW I also buy music and video).

As for other stuff... For me: 28 years, period. I don't give a plugged
nickle for the notion somebody can copyright today a creative work that's
more than 28 years old. 28-56 years old? Did it have meaningful value at
the half way point? If I figure it did, I figure it got renewed (only about
15% of what was copyrighted ever got extended). Otherwise I figure it
lapsed and is in the public domain.

Moving on to freight cars and such. I do respect the property value of
persons/libraries/museums who have found something interesting and want to
sell copies to the general public. Doesn't matter to me if it is under
copyright or not, I respect the seller for what they're doing and so in this
regard, I do follow a different set of rules and so I *do not* go into the
replication business using their product.

Yeah, hard to square the circle of these paragraphs in any principled way,
except perhaps by looking at who is doing the selling, respecting the little
guy, and sticking to the law as it was when it made sense.

I'm just being open and frank here...getting something off my chest so to
speak and not looking to debate anything.

Dave Nelson
P.S. Shawn, sorry to say it bud, but f*ck Disney for what they did.


Re: Fair use and the sharing of information

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Tom Madden wrote:
. . . But John's hypothetical response is no different from Tony referring questioners to his PFE
book, or to Vol. 17 of the SP Rolling Stock Series. Is it because John lacks the cachet of the Signature Press publishing empire?
Gosh, now I now know far the series goes <g>. Glad to hear of the cachet, though.

Whatever the reason, if we can no longer upload scans of purchased prints without concern, list members are going to have to accept references to commercial sources without grumbling. Referring
questioners to Bob's Photos will be tricky, since you can only buy from him at shows.
Like Richard does with jpegs, sending an individual copy is permitted. Often a Xerox will show what you want, too. But the danger with a jpeg is that an unscrupulous recipient may post it on the web without telling you. I'm a little more reluctant to send such images.

I have dozens of prints from the CSRM Library, and literally thousands of microfilm images, scans and paper copies of Pullman drawings and documents from the Newberry Library. . . it's pretty clear in talking with them that even "one copy for a friend" is frowned upon.
If the agreement you signed says this, then yes, you are so bound. But the copyright law does NOT have any such restriction, nor can an archive claim one on that basis.

One unintended consequence of all this may impact clinic handouts. I commonly take over 100 handouts to Martin's and Mike's meets. Guess I can show images of protected material in the presentation but can't include them in the handouts. Can o' worms!
This is indeed a gray area. Where does "educational" or "personal" use stop and "publication" begin? The Signature Press attorney stated to me that he doubted use of images in Powerpoint or comparable uses would be a problem, but handouts are problematic, as Tom says.
The way around it, of course, is to get permission. The foregoing comments only relate to images used WITHOUT permission.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Pete Brown wrote:
Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my wife's computer without breaking the law.
You are right about files like MP3. That appeared in the 1998 law. But that law did NOT change the rules for print publications, photographs, art, etc. Incidentally, restrictions on copying software are in the contract you accept when you install it. They are NOT copyright restrictions they are contract agreements, and you will find they differ from application to application.

You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.
Again, you're right, and I don't believe I said otherwise. I was thinking of a Xerox of a photo or magazine article, not a complete book. One rule used by many libraries is that you can only copy a maximum of 10 percent of a publication. That number is not blessed in any legal sense but has become a widespread "safe" number. OTOH, I once asked a librarian, when discussing this issue, if there was a problem in my copying 10 percent now, 10 percent an hour hence, etc. She smiled and said she would not have any issue with that: it would be between me and my conscience.
Making paper copies for others HAS been tested in court, and does fall under fair use if a "reasonable" number of copies is made.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Steam Era Videos

Paul Hillman
 

Chet,

Thank you for the direction to the C&EI/L&N in the period of 1945-
1950 through these films/DVD's.

I will immediately seek out the "Green Frog Productions" DVD's.

Paul Hillman


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Chet French" <cfrench@...> wrote:

Group,
Part 2 is all shot in the Evansville, Ind. area. Coverage is
about
90% L&N and C&EI steam in the 1945-1950 period. Once again the
main
focus is on the passenger trains and the many engine moves between
the
Evansville station and the engine terminal at Howell Yard. But
there
are enough glimpses at freight cars to make it worthwhile. Bill
W.,
there is one scene where four FGEX wood reefers, at least two with
truss rods, are kicked down the lead at Howell Yard.


Re: No full-proof copy protection

Pete Brown \(YahooGroups\) <YahooLists@...>
 

Except that 1 copy for your friend is also typically illegal. You can't
share an MP3 with a friend, and I can't use the same copy of Windows for my
wife's computer without breaking the law.

The most you are typically allowed to do with any electronic media is make
one backup copy which cannot be used at the same time.

You also can't xerox a whole book or magazine article and give that to a
friend. I'm not sure where you got that information.

Pete
_____________________________________________________
Pete Brown - Gambrills, MD (Near Annapolis)
Visit my personal site : http://www.irritatedVowel.com
(wallpaper, western maryland ry, .net, photography, model rr)





_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 12:49 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: No full-proof copy protection


Jim Eckman wrote:
I remember reading on either the ALA or one of the GOV sites that any
work published before 1923 is public domain, period. Everything else
'depends' but probably any works published before 1949 like corporate
reports and stuff are probably fair game as well because it is unlikely
that the companies spent the money to renew the copyright a second
time.
In principle, you can check on renewals through the LOC but it is
not easy. You certainly would not do it for minor matters.

ALA.org (American Library Association) has a fair amount of stuff on
what constitutes fair use for libraries.
Jim raises a very important point: fair use. Making copies,
whether Xerox or electronic, for personal use has always been
permitted, and it extends to a copy for a friend, for HIS personal use.
For 100 friends, nope. Where is the boundary between 100 and one
friend? This is one of those "gray areas" in the law. Obviously more
copies become more problematic.
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions
responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your
viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy for
printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way. But the
internet really is more like publication: it goes all over the world to
a potentially enormous number of "personal users." This seems likely to
exceed the number of 100 which I just mentioned <g>. That's why
"sharing images," an acceptable behavior under "fair use," becomes
something else when carried out on the internet.
Whether new copyright rules will eventually provide a
balance between personal use and copyright protection is unclear. The
"Mickey Mouse law" of 1998 (it's actually known as the Copyright Term
Extension Act or CTEA) on electronic copyright errs, in my view, in
totally subsuming fair use to corporate protection. I hope the pendulum
swings back.

Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA
2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com
(510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Fair use and the sharing of information

pullmanboss <tgmadden@...>
 

Tony Thompson wrote:
I think the reason many people react badly to restrictions
responding to the internet problem we are discussing is that your
viewing at home feels like a personal use, and downloading a copy
for printing out or electronic archiving feels the same way.
The internet is certainly the Great Deceiver. Maybe it's the
solitude and supposed anonymity, but it can make middle-aged men
think teenage girls lust after them, that everything should be free
and freely available, and that the entire world is breathlessly
waiting to hear my opinions about something. :-) I harbor a number
of illusions, certainly that last one for sure but thankfully not
the first two. I set those aside weeks ago.

Maybe what we need to do more is something Tony has been doing all
along - tell inquirers where the information can be found rather
than laying it all out for them. For references that are out of
print or hard to come by, do what Richard does with photos - send a
scan by private email. Or mail a copy. There's nothing that says
requested information has to be delivered instantly and
electronically.

There's at least one attitude problem that will have to be overcome.
If photo seller John La Rue, whose commercial presence for most of
us is behind an album-filled table at meets, were to respond to an
STMFC question with "I have a photo that shows exactly what you
want, my catalog number XXX-YYY - drop a check for ten bucks in the
mail and I'll get an 8x10 off to you right away", he'd be accused of
crass behavior and witholding information. But John's hypothetical
response is no different from Tony referring questioners to his PFE
book, or to Vol. 17 of the SP Rolling Stock Series. Is it because
John lacks the cachet of the Signature Press publishing empire?
Whatever the reason, if we can no longer upload scans of purchased
prints without concern, list members are going to have to accept
references to commercial sources without grumbling. Referring
questioners to Bob's Photos will be tricky, since you can only buy
from him at shows. Someone in Corsicana, Texas might not find such a
reference very useful.

But the internet really is more like publication: it goes all over
the world to a potentially enormous number of "personal users."
This seems likely to exceed the number of 100 which I just
mentioned <g>. That's why "sharing images," an acceptable behavior
under "fair use," becomes something else when carried out on the
internet.
I have dozens of prints from the CSRM Library, and literally
thousands of microfilm images, scans and paper copies of Pullman
drawings and documents from the Newberry Library. I purchased every
one of them. None of them is copyrighted, but every copy request I
signed was really a contract stating that the material was for my
own personal use, and that I had not purchased any publication or
distribution rights. I have pretty congenial relations with the
Newberry folks and am a contributing member of that Library. Even
so, it's pretty clear in talking with them that even "one copy for a
friend" is frowned upon.

One unintended consequence of all this may impact clinic handouts. I
commonly take over 100 handouts to Martin's and Mike's meets. Guess
I can show images of protected material in the presentation but
can't include them in the handouts. Can o' worms!

Tom Madden


Re: YS&T tank cars

SUVCWORR@...
 

In a message dated 5/12/2006 4:30:32 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
smithbf@auburn.edu writes:

On May 12, 2006, at 10:10 AM, SUVCWORR@aol.com wrote:
In the meantime, could someone knowledgeable about tank cars tell
me the
type of car and any starting point for modeling GATX 18046 and GATX
18407?
Rich,

From my memory of those shots, these were both General American
built tank cars. At the moment, other then the RC brass model, we
have no good models of these cars in HO. I keep hearing hints that
this may change, so keep your fingers crossed.

Regards
Bruce



Thanks, Bruce. I wait and hope.

Rich


Re: YS&T tank cars

Bruce Smith
 

On May 12, 2006, at 10:10 AM, SUVCWORR@aol.com wrote:
In the meantime, could someone knowledgeable about tank cars tell me the
type of car and any starting point for modeling GATX 18046 and GATX 18407?
Rich,

From my memory of those shots, these were both General American built tank cars. At the moment, other then the RC brass model, we have no good models of these cars in HO. I keep hearing hints that this may change, so keep your fingers crossed.

Regards
Bruce

Bruce F. Smith
Auburn, AL
http://www.vetmed.auburn.edu/~smithbf/

"Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy" - Benjamin Franklin
__
/ &#92;
__<+--+>________________&#92;__/___ ________________________________
|- ______/ O O &#92;_______ -| | __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ |
| / 4999 PENNSYLVANIA 4999 &#92; | ||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||__||
|/_____________________________&#92;|_|________________________________|
| O--O &#92;0 0 0 0/ O--O | 0-0-0 0-0-0


Steam Era Videos

Chet French <cfrench@...>
 

Group,

Yesterday I received 3 DVD's titled "The Golden Twilight of Postwar
Steam", parts one, two, and three. They came from Green Frog
Productions, which I have no interest in, other than being a customer.
The DVD's were produced from 16mm film shot by Gene Miller (not
familiar with him) during the 1945-1950 period and is about 75% in
color. As with most film, the main subject is the engines, but there
is enough freight cars to make it interesting. My only complaint is
that most run-bys only lasted long enough to see a few freight cars in
the trains. Mr. Miller seemed especially interested in the passenger
trains as he usually shot the entire train.

Part 1 focuses on the west end of the Pennsy in the Chicago (mainly
Englewood), Terre Haute, and St Louis areas. I would guess that about
80% of 54 minutes is dedicated to the PRR. The footage will make the
SPF's really slobber, and then some. I even came to attention when
several of the joint PRR-Wabash Chicago/Detroit trains passed by.

Part 2 is all shot in the Evansville, Ind. area. Coverage is about
90% L&N and C&EI steam in the 1945-1950 period. Once again the main
focus is on the passenger trains and the many engine moves between the
Evansville station and the engine terminal at Howell Yard. But there
are enough glimpses at freight cars to make it worthwhile. Bill W.,
there is one scene where four FGEX wood reefers, at least two with
truss rods, are kicked down the lead at Howell Yard.

Part 3 was shot in the St Louis area, and other locations in the
midwest. Then it is off to the West where a good portion covers the UP
mainly in the Denver area. This is one that our group leader will
want. Some Santa Fe including doubleheaded Pacifics at Dearborn
Station, and not enough SP. All were very entertaining and good
quality.

Chet French
Dixon, IL

135401 - 135420 of 189832