Re: ATSF Bx-12 Extended roof painting help....
William Keene <wakeene@...>
Charlie,
From a quick glance at the Painting and Lettering Guide, it appears that your comments on paint colors are quite valid. For the 1946 date, the printed history, in general, confirms your understanding. That said, I am presently looking at Bx-12 photos in ATSF COLOR GUIDE TO FREIGHT AND PASSENGER EQUIPMENT, Lloyd E. Stagner, Morning Sun Books, 1995, and there appears to be some variation on the color scheme. There are three Bx-12s pictured; the 211673 photographed in December, 1962; the 212861 photographed in October, 1967; and the 213481 photographed in October 1960. And this is what I can see... Re: 211673: Mineral Brown roof color with what appears to be a wood roof walk (a bit hard to tell from the edge view, but my "guess"). Trucks... very dirty, but appear to be mineral brown. Ditto for the underframe (at least the air tank is MB). Re: 212861: Mineral Brown roof color with a galvanized steel roof walk. One can make out the overspray on this element. Trucks... in the shadows and the underframe is not visible. Re: 213481: Unknown roof color with a steel roof walk. Trucks... very dirty. My guess is MB. The underframe is in the shadows. The year that you are modeling will play a major role in determining just what the roof finish color is. If memory of the paint/lettering guide is correct, the black cement roof color was changed as supplies ran out to mineral brown in the early 1950s. A long response to say that I believe you are correct in your thinking. I also like the Lego idea and will give it a try once this grandpa buys a set for his granddaughter. Cheers, -- Bill Keene Irvine, CA On Sep 4, 2006, at 4:03 PM, Charlie Duckworth wrote: Am getting close to finishing the Westerfield Bx-12 kit with the[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
|
|
ATSF Bx-12 Extended roof painting help....
Charlie Duckworth <trduck@...>
Am getting close to finishing the Westerfield Bx-12 kit with the
extended roof. Am modeling a boxcar with a lightweight date of 3-46. Would like to verify what I 'think'is the right color scheme for this time period. Roof - cement black Wood roofwalk - Mineral Brown Sides/doors/ends - mineral brown (sides & ends painted mineral brown to the roofline. Tackboards - mineral brown Underframe & trucks - black Thanks for the help. btw I 'borrowed' some Legos from a box in the basement to help true up the ends and sides. By gluing Legos to the end of the sides I ensured I had a 90 degree angle. I also glued (acc'd) a long Lego against the top of the interior sides for the roof to side on. Kit went together quite easily with this interior bracing.
|
|
Re: O&W hopper book
Tony Thompson
Ed Mines wrote:
Has anyone seen the O&W hopper book?We rejected the book in the form it then existed, so I know a lot about it. It has a superb history of the evolution of hopper cars, which appears to be the product of extensive research. The coverage of O&W seems quite complete also (and if you're not an O&W fanatic, perhaps more than you really want to know or even be aware of), though not with a huge number of photos. I proposed to the author that the book emphasize the hopper history, and treat the O&W as an illustration thereof; the manuscript submitted to us was approximately the reverse emphasis. I will be interested to see what the final product is. We did not feel it was an inferior work at all, only that it was not organized in the best way to sell to a larger market, and the author declined to entertain any such changes. Whatever its final form, for O&W people, I assume it will be a godsend. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history
|
|
O&W hopper book
ed_mines
Has anyone seen the O&W hopper book?
Does it cover cars from other railroads? Are there a lot of photos? Ed
|
|
Re: Cudahy reefers?
Richard Hendrickson
On Sep 3, 2006, at 6:07 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:
In the May 93 RMC Richard Hendrickson had an article on making a Cudahy reefer from the MDC 36 foot wood reefer. He mentioned that Cudahy (CRLX) had two series of these cars, 5701-5850 and 5901-6100 that were similar but not identical. The 1961 ORER also lists a third series, 6101-6400 that has the same dimensions - in all respects - as these other two. Does anyone know if this third series could also be modeled in the manner of the article?Kurt, the 1950 ORER shows the number series 6101-6300 with dimensions identical to the other number series. I have two photos of cars in this series which appear to be identical to the earlier Cudahy cars and bear built dates of 1-49 and 3-49 (yes, Cudahy was still having 36' wood reefers built to the pre-World War II design as late as 1949 and possibly even later than that). The additional 100 cars, bringing the number series up to 6101-6400, are shown in the 1953 ORER. I have no documentary or photographic evidence about those extra cars; they may be an additional group of cars built new after 1950 or they may be older cars with the same dimensions that were renumbered after receiving general repairs. The only significant differences among the three series of cars were trucks. Cars in the 5701-5850 series had National B-1 trucks. Cars in the 5901-6100 series had Barber Stabilized S-2 trucks. Some cars in the 6101-6300 series had ASF A-3 "Ride Control" trucks, while others had Barber S-2s. Richard Hendrickson
|
|
Santa Fe USRA Rebuilt Reefers
Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
Based on the photographs in Santa fe Railway rolling stock reference series
volume 2, Refrigerators cars, It appears the USRA rebuild up to RR-34 kept top operated couplers and RR-35 onward (postwar or nearly so) had bottom operated couplers. I can't find this difference noted in the text so I am looking for confirmation. Were any of the early top operated couplers replaced with bottom operated couplers later on in life? I am working on detailing an RR-28 and RR-23 for 1957. Thanks. Brian J Carlson P.E. Cheektowaga NY
|
|
Email change
Jim King
I tried sending this note out last night but not all of the lists got
notified, thanks to Yahoo's screening. Effective immediately, my email address is changed to jimking3@.... The old address (jimking3@...) will remain active until later this month when that account expires. Please make a note in your address book. Jim King Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc. http://www.smokymountainmodelworks.com
|
|
Re: Cudahy reefers?
joebinish@...
Kurt,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Nice work. When I can see straight(tomorrow), I'll look at the data and see how they line up. Thanks, Joe Binish
----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt Laughlin To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 11:00 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Cudahy reefers? >I have a further question for Dr. H. You mention in the article(I am in the material acquisition phase of modelling one of these cars) that the MDC model is "close to the correct dimensions". Could you please post a comparison between the prototype and said kit for those of us who are ORER challenged? TIA, Joe Binish > Joe, FWIW, I compiled a table a while back of the 1961 ORER dimensions for various wood reefers pictured in my references compared to the MDC 36 foot meat reefer, the Mehano/AHM(?) reefer (with steel ends), and Industrial/Varney(?) RTR kit. Hopefully the column comes across OK: CAR NUMBER ORER TYPE INSIDE H LENGTH EAVE W DOOR W DOOR H REF MDC RS 37' 2" 9' 9" 4' 1" 6' 4" GARX 1581 572 RSM 6' 5" 37' 3" 9' 11" 3' 10" 6' 2" CF10 SRLX 2601 572 RSM 6' 8" 37' 3" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF65 CRLX 5802 560 RSM 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR55 CRLX 5819 560 RSM 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF50 SRLX 3577 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF1 SRLX 4555 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF65 SRLX 5423 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF1 SRLX 5446 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR53 SRLX 5767 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR53 SRLX 5839 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF9 SRLX 6714 572 RAM 6' 2" 37' 5" 9' 6" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR54 URTX 77026 608 RB 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR55 ARLX 11414 561 RAM 6' 1" 37' 10" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR54 ARLX 11945 561 RAM 6' 1" 37' 10" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR54 IND RS 38' 1" 10' 0" 3' 10" 6' 4" URTX 63347 608 RSM 6' 8" 38' 4" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 5" MR55 SRLX 15307 572 RAM 6' 10" 39' 0" 9' 4" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF11 NWX 4570 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF62 NWX 15265 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF61 NWX 70193 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF62 WRX 9134 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF38 WRX 9670 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF37 WRX 9787 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF37 URTX 5093 608 RS 7' 4" 40' 10" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF24 WFEX 49543 605 RS 6' 11" 40' 10" 10' 2" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF41 URTX 10728 608 RS 7' 5" 40' 11" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 6" CF24 SRLX 1020 572 RB 7' 6" 40' 7" 10' 3" 4' 11" 7' 1" CF10 FGEX 50098 563 RS 7' 3" 41' 8" 9' 11 " 4' 0" 6' 0" CF52 FGEX 59608 563 RS 7' 5" 41' 8" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 1" CF52 WFEX 72054 605 RS 7' 5" 41' 8" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 1" CF41 AHM RS 41' 8" 10' 0" 4' 1" 6' 4" CP 289107 220 RSM 6' 8" 42' 2" 9' 4" 4' 0" 6' 4" CF59 GTW 206950 210 RSM 6' 7" 42' 6" 10' 2" 5' 0" 6' 4" CF64 BAR 6582 194 RS 7' 3" 42' 7" 9' 9" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF22 CP 285489 220 RSM 6' 8" 42' 7" 9' 11" 5' 0" 6' 4" CF59 My dimensions were taken with a ruler rather than using my calipers, so they are probably only within 1/32 which is ~ 2.5 inches full size. Given that it's hard to be certain what exactly the ORER dimension refers to, hard to determine exactly what you measure on the car, plus the fact that injection molding requires some compromises in shapes and sizes, this is probably about as good as you could expect to get, and close enough to make a comparison. HTH, KL
|
|
Re: Cudahy reefers?
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
I have a further question for Dr. H. You mention in the article(I am in the material acquisition phase of modelling one of these cars) that the MDC model is "close to the correct dimensions". Could you please post a comparison between the prototype and said kit for those of us who are ORER challenged?TIA, Joe Binish Joe, FWIW, I compiled a table a while back of the 1961 ORER dimensions for various wood reefers pictured in my references compared to the MDC 36 foot meat reefer, the Mehano/AHM(?) reefer (with steel ends), and Industrial/Varney(?) RTR kit. Hopefully the column comes across OK: CAR NUMBER ORER TYPE INSIDE H LENGTH EAVE W DOOR W DOOR H REF MDC RS 37' 2" 9' 9" 4' 1" 6' 4" GARX 1581 572 RSM 6' 5" 37' 3" 9' 11" 3' 10" 6' 2" CF10 SRLX 2601 572 RSM 6' 8" 37' 3" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF65 CRLX 5802 560 RSM 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR55 CRLX 5819 560 RSM 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF50 SRLX 3577 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF1 SRLX 4555 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF65 SRLX 5423 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF1 SRLX 5446 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR53 SRLX 5767 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR53 SRLX 5839 572 RAM 6' 6" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" CF9 SRLX 6714 572 RAM 6' 2" 37' 5" 9' 6" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR54 URTX 77026 608 RB 7' 2" 37' 5" 9' 11" 4' 0" 5' 9" MR55 ARLX 11414 561 RAM 6' 1" 37' 10" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR54 ARLX 11945 561 RAM 6' 1" 37' 10" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 0" MR54 IND RS 38' 1" 10' 0" 3' 10" 6' 4" URTX 63347 608 RSM 6' 8" 38' 4" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 5" MR55 SRLX 15307 572 RAM 6' 10" 39' 0" 9' 4" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF11 NWX 4570 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF62 NWX 15265 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF61 NWX 70193 594 RS 7' 1" 40' 0" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF62 WRX 9134 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF38 WRX 9670 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF37 WRX 9787 613 RS 7' 6" 40' 0" 9' 10" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF37 URTX 5093 608 RS 7' 4" 40' 10" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF24 WFEX 49543 605 RS 6' 11" 40' 10" 10' 2" 4' 0" 6' 0" CF41 URTX 10728 608 RS 7' 5" 40' 11" 9' 11" 4' 0" 6' 6" CF24 SRLX 1020 572 RB 7' 6" 40' 7" 10' 3" 4' 11" 7' 1" CF10 FGEX 50098 563 RS 7' 3" 41' 8" 9' 11 " 4' 0" 6' 0" CF52 FGEX 59608 563 RS 7' 5" 41' 8" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 1" CF52 WFEX 72054 605 RS 7' 5" 41' 8" 10' 1" 4' 0" 6' 1" CF41 AHM RS 41' 8" 10' 0" 4' 1" 6' 4" CP 289107 220 RSM 6' 8" 42' 2" 9' 4" 4' 0" 6' 4" CF59 GTW 206950 210 RSM 6' 7" 42' 6" 10' 2" 5' 0" 6' 4" CF64 BAR 6582 194 RS 7' 3" 42' 7" 9' 9" 4' 0" 6' 5" CF22 CP 285489 220 RSM 6' 8" 42' 7" 9' 11" 5' 0" 6' 4" CF59 My dimensions were taken with a ruler rather than using my calipers, so they are probably only within 1/32 which is ~ 2.5 inches full size. Given that it's hard to be certain what exactly the ORER dimension refers to, hard to determine exactly what you measure on the car, plus the fact that injection molding requires some compromises in shapes and sizes, this is probably about as good as you could expect to get, and close enough to make a comparison. HTH, KL
|
|
50's Vehicles
Richard Dermody <ddermody@...>
Here's a new list that has nothing to do with freight cars directly, but certainly relates to our period of interest and therefore might be of interest to the group.
To quote: "50's and older vehicle list Many people model vehicles such as trucks, busses, construction equipment, cars etc in 1/87 or HO scale. While many lists seem to cater more towards the equipment of today, this list will address those modelling the vehicles typical of the 1950's era. It should be noted that vehicles operating in the fifties included many dating back to the 20's so there is much area for discussion." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/50sERA87thScaleVehicles Pete Bowers is the list owner, and also runs CN Lines, so I believe you can consider this a reputable group to join. Best regards, Richard F. Dermody
|
|
Re: Sunshine Models IC two-bay hopper model
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Ed Hawkins wrote:
"Also possibly the D&M (5000-5024), which I've never come across a good photo to confirm for sure." Ed, there's a photo of D&M 5003 on page 25 of Henderson's Classic Freight Cars Vol 4. Ben Hom
|
|
Re: Cudahy reefers?
joebinish@...
Ihave a further question for Dr. H. You mention in the article(I am in the material acquisition phase of modelling one of these cars) that the MDC model is "close to the correct dimensions". Could you please post a comparison between the prototype and said kit for those of us who are ORER challenged?
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
TIA, Joe Binish
----- Original Message -----
From: Kurt Laughlin To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 8:07 PM Subject: [STMFC] Cudahy reefers? In the May 93 RMC Richard Hendrickson had an article on making a Cudahy reefer from the MDC 36 foot wood reefer. He mentioned that Cudahy (CRLX) had two series of these cars, 5701-5850 and 5901-6100 that were similar but not identical. The 1961 ORER also lists a third series, 6101-6400 that has the same dimensions - in all respects - as these other two. Does anyone know if this third series could also be modeled in the manner of the article? Thanks, KL
|
|
Re: Sunshine Models IC two-bay hopper model - AAR alternate st
James D Thompson <jaydeet@...>
I saw on the trains.com web site that Sunshine Models is making anThe "AAR Alternate Standard" was essentially the Unitcast offset-side hopper first built for the AMC roads (C&O, NKP, and Erie) in 1934. It was 4 inches lower than the standard design and had different transition panels and gusset spacing than the otherwise similar design adopted as the AAR Standard. The IC car modeled by Sunshine was a third variety that traced its lineage back to a 34'9" offset-side car promoted by Enterprise at the end of the 1920s. EREX 212 seems to be the original, built in 10/27 (p.252 of the 1931 CBC). IC, NC&StL, and GN at least received similar if not identical cars in 1929-31. The design was revised to incorporate most of the features of the AAR Standard car but retained the Enterprise side construction and was built in large numbers for IC and a few other roads in the 1930s-40s. David Thompson
|
|
Cudahy reefers?
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
In the May 93 RMC Richard Hendrickson had an article on making a Cudahy reefer from the MDC 36 foot wood reefer. He mentioned that Cudahy (CRLX) had two series of these cars, 5701-5850 and 5901-6100 that were similar but not identical. The 1961 ORER also lists a third series, 6101-6400 that has the same dimensions - in all respects - as these other two. Does anyone know if this third series could also be modeled in the manner of the article?
Thanks, KL
|
|
Re: Early RP recommendations; was: Prototype for Bachmann "51 ft Mechanical Steel Reefer"?
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
Thanks Tony. I'll have to get that article and your book.
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
KL
----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Thompson To: STMFC@... Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2006 1:53 PM Subject: Re: [STMFC] Early RP recommendations; was: Prototype for Bachmann "51 ft Mechanical Steel Reefer"? Kurt Laughlin wrote: > It looks like this may still be salvageble with new ends and details, > however I wonder if the Athearn 1630 series isn't a better option. > What would the rest of the group recommend as starting kits for an > early RP? > I have the PFE book on my Christmas list, but am also looking for > Tony's RMC article on PFE RPs. I have his RA/RS series and they've > been very helpful. Kurt, in my article in the January, 1988 RMC I showed my model of a PFE Class R-70-8 made from a Lima body. The Athearn is probably better overall, though it needs work too. As Ben Hom said, the overhanging roof is a distinctive feature which is needed for a good model, and my Lima version didn't have that. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history
|
|
Re: Early RP recommendations; was: Prototype for Bachmann "51 ft Mechanical Steel Reefer"?
Tony Thompson
Kurt Laughlin wrote:
It looks like this may still be salvageble with new ends and details, however I wonder if the Athearn 1630 series isn't a better option. What would the rest of the group recommend as starting kits for an early RP?Kurt, in my article in the January, 1988 RMC I showed my model of a PFE Class R-70-8 made from a Lima body. The Athearn is probably better overall, though it needs work too. As Ben Hom said, the overhanging roof is a distinctive feature which is needed for a good model, and my Lima version didn't have that. 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@... Publishers of books on railroad history
|
|
Early RP recommendations; was: Prototype for Bachmann "51 ft Mechanical Steel Reefer"?
Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
"The model has the lower, almost square screen on the left B end side, and a rectangular louver on the right B side. Is that correct? If not, I might just junk it and get an Athearn. Louvers are a bit much to fiddle with." Kurt, I currently don't have this model or the Athearn model on hand. Please verify which end that the louvers for the refriegration unit are located. If they are indeed located at the B end, the car is incorrect as the refrigeration unit (and the 5/5 Dreadnaught end) was located at the A end. Yup, the refrigeration unit is definitely at the B end. The rectangular lover is located on the left side of the car, and the lower, almost square screen is located on the right side of the car. See the drawing on page 210 of Thompson/Church/Jones' Pacific Fruit Express (Second Edition). Looking at the B end the square screen is on the left, the rectangular louver on the right. Looking at the car sides, the rectangular louver is on the left (as is the B end) while on the other side the square screen is is on the right (as is the B end). The car has six panels on either side of the ~8 ft plug door. Both ends have a somewhat flattened 5/5 dreadnought end with square corners. It has a 15 panel roof with the center 13 embossed with diagonals. The roof panel edges are set back a bit from the car sides, perhaps their attempt to show the overhanging roof. The running boards are molded in. It looks like this may still be salvageble with new ends and details, however I wonder if the Athearn 1630 series isn't a better option. What would the rest of the group recommend as starting kits for an early RP? I have the PFE book on my Christmas list, but am also looking for Tony's RMC article on PFE RPs. I have his RA/RS series and they've been very helpful. Thanks, KL
|
|
NP 1937 AAR BOXCAR PAINTING QUESTIONS
billkeene2004 <wakeene@...>
Good moring Group,
I am completing the assembly of an IMWX model of a 1937 AAR Northern Pacific boxcar and have a question regarding what color the underbody and trucks would have been painted in the post WW2 to early 1950s period? It also appears in some photos that the wood running boards were perhaps painted a different color than the roof. Is this correct? And if so, what color? Any help on this subject would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Bill Keene Irvine, CA
|
|
Re: Prototype for Bachmann "51 ft Mechanical Steel Reefer"?
benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
Kurt Laughlin wrote:
"The model has the lower, almost square screen on the left B end side, and a rectangular louver on the right B side. Is that correct? If not, I might just junk it and get an Athearn. Louvers are a bit much to fiddle with." Kurt, I currently don't have this model or the Athearn model on hand. Please verify which end that the louvers for the refriegration unit are located. If they are indeed located at the B end, the car is incorrect as the refrigeration unit (and the 5/5 Dreadnaught end) was located at the A end. The rectangular lover is located on the left side of the car, and the lower, almost square screen is located on the right side of the car. See the drawing on page 210 of Thompson/Church/Jones' Pacific Fruit Express (Second Edition). "Looking at the Athearn site, it appears that they produce their model both with and without the diagonal braces next to the door." Compare the models more closely - the model that we've been discussing has exterior post sides; the other Athearn 50 ft mechanical reefer models earlier PFE mechanical reefers and is closest to classes R-70-9 and R-70-10, built 1954-55. It has the same problem with ends as the models that we've been discussing, and the roof is incorrect (it should be a ZU-section "overhanging" eave). See PFE, pages 199-201. Ben Hom
|
|
Re: John Golden's insults
golden1014
Hey Jared,
I don't recall calling Richard and/or Ed "fat", but if I did I didn't communicate properly. If anything, we're all fat (with knowledge) because of the hard work these guys do and the mentorship they provide. There's really no way for us to repay them and others on this list and elsewhere that have taken the prototype movement so far. BTW, congratulations on your fine models and layout plan appearing in the magazines. It's about time, my friend. And now, on to more pertinent STMFC matters. John Golden O'Fallon, IL John Golden O'Fallon, IL Hosting the St. Louis RPM Meet 25-26 Aug 06, 9AM to 9PM Gateway Convention Center One Gateway Center Dr. Collinsville, IL 62234 Updated as of 01 Jun 06: http://www.pbase.com/golden1014
|
|