Date   

Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Jack Burgess
 

Dennis wrote:
If you reread the message carefully, you'll see that the two sidings
in question were railroad owned, but were built to server private
loading docks.
You're right...I missed that important point.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Paul" <buygone@...> wrote:

In simple terms, a team track was a railroad owned spur that non
rail served
customers could ship or receive carload traffic. A private spur was
just
that private. Only the owner of that property could ship or receive
carload
traffic. If the owner of this private spur ceased to ship or
receive rail
traffic, it was not uncommon for the railroad to remove the switch
serving
the private spur as that was railroad owned.
But that doesn't address Tom's question, which appears to boil down
to, "Is any railroad owned siding a team track?" I would have to say…
it depends.

Obviously, one could not consign a car to the local roundhouse and
expect to pick the load up there, so somewhere in the tarrifs there
must be a list of tracks that are specifically set aside for this use.
Likewise, there are many railroad owned tracks that serve private
businesses that can't be team tracks simply because the only access is
on private property. However, if the railroad provided driveway access
on their own property, I'm sure they could designate the portion of a
track still on their property as a "public team track" if they chose to..

To respond to Tom's question about railroad owned track that looked
like a private siding, this was pretty common in the Midwest. Here it
was quite common for the railroad to construct a track along one edge
of their station grounds and encourage small industry to locate along
it. In Elburn, on the former C&NW, we have a railroad owned track that
once served a farm service fertilizer shed and three oil jobbers, one
of which was located across a public street and had a pipe buried
under that street to reach his unloading stand along the track.

The C&NW also maintained a public team track, and a public stock pen
on the station grounds. At one point they leased the stock pens to the
local packing house, at which point I would imagine they were no
longer available for public use. And, more recently, the railroad
owned siding along the fertilizer shed on the other side of the
mainline temporarily became (with a lot of improvement) the Union
Pacific's eastbound mainline while the new trackage for the Metra
terminal was under construction. As that work finished up, the track
was shifted away from the still existing (but no longer active)
fertilizer warehouse. For a while, it was quite a close shave between
the building and passing mainline trains.

To sum up for Tom, a track isn't a team track unless the railroad says
it is a team track, and somewhere there will be a list.

Dennis


Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Burgess" <jack@...> wrote:

...It seems strange that
the CRC would consider a case when "private" could/should be easily
determined by land ownership. On the other hand, as you state, they
didn't
rule on tariffs being charged on the basis of private vs. railroad-owner
trackage.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
Jack,

If you reread the message carefully, you'll see that the two sidings
in question were railroad owned, but were built to server private
loading docks. I would assume the situation was the track was on the
edge of railroad property (or in the street, built under the authority
of the railroad's franchise) while the loading dock was on private
property, the property line being between the tie ends and the dock.
The WP wanted these ruled to be private, as their purpose was the same
as a private siding; the SP claimed that they were part of their
terminal facilities, as they could, and did, occasionally use them for
other purposes.

The commission ruled for the SP, which was entirely consistent with
the ownership of the track.

Dennis


Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Jack Burgess" <jack@...> wrote:

...It seems strange that
the CRC would consider a case when "private" could/should be easily
determined by land ownership. On the other hand, as you state, they
didn't
rule on tariffs being charged on the basis of private vs. railroad-owner
trackage.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
Jack,

If you reread the message carefully, you'll see that the two sidings
in question were railroad owned, but were built to server private
loading docks. I would assume the situation was the track was on the
edge of railroad property (or in the street, built under the authority
of the railroad's franchise) while the loading dock was on private
property, the property line being between the tie ends and the dock.
The WP wanted these ruled to be private, as their purpose was the same
as a private siding; the SP claimed that they were part of their
terminal facilities, as they could, and did, occasionally use them for
other purposes.

The commission ruled for the SP, which was entirely consistent with
the ownership of the track.

Dennis


Re: Western Maryland Hoppers

trainman2700 <russel22@...>
 

Mark,

Ned Carey did an article in the Winter 2002 issue of the Blue Mountain
Express on detailing Stewart fishbelly cars contact the WM historical
society they should have extra copies.

Russel Miller


New Book

trainman2700 <russel22@...>
 

The Western Maryland Railway Historical Society has just published a
book on WM Boxcars and Refrigerator Cars covering from 1905 to 1995 if
anyone is interested.

Russel Miller


Re: Cars about to face cutting torch

laramielarry <ostresh@...>
 

Hi Everyone

Here is an update on the demolition taking place in Laramie: The
F7B, which was relatively intact last Sunday, is now rubble. For
photos from last week, see John Combs' website:
http://www.alaskarails.org/historical/former/alumni/1511/index.html

For photos from yesterday, see Nathan Holmes' website:
http://www.drgw.net/gallery/DRGW5552-Scrapping

The Rock Island caboose, UP bunk car, and possibly a UP snow plow
will apparently be scrapped starting next week. Photos of the
caboose and bunk car are on Nathan Holmes' website. Here is a brief
description of them:

1. Rock Island wide vision caboose 17017 - excellent condition:
Sink, toilet, all windows intact, batteries and fuses in place, most
lettering legible, needs paint.
2. Bunk car used as an office by Wyoming/Colorado RR. Painted pink,
no lettering, otherwise in good condition, still on its trucks. I
believe this is one of the A-50-12 automobile cars built for the
Union Pacific in 1929 by Ralston Steel Car Co, road #s 152001-
152500: It has outside-braced steel sides with Dreadnaught ends.
3. We think the following will be spared, but are not certain:
Single track wedge snow plow UP 900015, good condition.

Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming
ostresh@uwyo.edu


Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Paul <buygone@...>
 

In simple terms, a team track was a railroad owned spur that non rail served
customers could ship or receive carload traffic. A private spur was just
that private. Only the owner of that property could ship or receive carload
traffic. If the owner of this private spur ceased to ship or receive rail
traffic, it was not uncommon for the railroad to remove the switch serving
the private spur as that was railroad owned.



All switches connecting to the railroad were owned by the serving railroad
to the clear point. Beyond the clear point it was the property owner's
responsibility to pay for the installation and maintenance of the track.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jack
Burgess
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:02 AM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Team tracks that look like private sidings?



I'm sure someone will have more complete information regarding private spurs
vs. team tracks, but in our town (Newark, CA) the SP engineering and
maintenance departments certainly upheld that distinction until the SP was
bought out by the UP. Newark has a large switching yard and a lot of
industrial sidings which were very active in the 70s and 80s. I worked for
the city of Newark and we quickly came to realize that private sidings were
not maintained by the railroad in any way. Most were on private property but
we had some private grade crossings which, if maintained at all, were
maintained by private railroad contractors. So, it would seem that the
railroad kept an accurate inventory of private vs. railroad-owned trackage.
The industries on some of the sidings changed ownership over time and even
types of industries occasionally changed. However, that shouldn't change the
fact that the siding was private. (As a side note, the land on one side of
the yard was originally all owned by SP and SP would not sell parcels to a
new owner unless they needed and agreed to rail service.) Regarding the
abandonment of a siding, remember that the siding is on private property. If
the business is abandoned, the railroad can't just take over the siding. In
this case, the business probably executed a quit claim on the land (and thus
the siding), transferring the land to the railroad. It seems strange that
the CRC would consider a case when "private" could/should be easily
determined by land ownership. On the other hand, as you state, they didn't
rule on tariffs being charged on the basis of private vs. railroad-owner
trackage.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: PS-1 box cars

Jim Peters <box_car_pete@...>
 

Good morning,

The sill tabs at the bolsters (based on my observations) changed size about 1953 - 54. The earlier as Sam pointed out are closer to AAR specs. The later are much larger. This is a significant difference in HO (at least to this Rivet Counter).
The InterMountain PS-1 kit represents the later version . . . I do not buy R-T-R models, as such I have never studied the Kadee version in detail. But I must agree, in my opinion the Kadee after market parts are a "God-Send".

Jim Peters
Coquitlam, BC


x702samc <kadeemail@mindspring.com> wrote:
Fred, Garth, and Group,

Garths' comments are well done with some very good ideas to build
the pre 1950 PS-1s. As mentioned, there were a number of major
differences between the 1947 to 1950 PS-1s but there were a few minor
differences too that are usually not mentioned. Somewhere between
1947 and 1949 Pullman Standard changed the underframes from an AAR
style to the Pullman proprietary PS underframe and this continued to
change through it's production history with different floor runners,
cross beam and bearers,etc. On These early cars the tabs on the side
sills were smaller with different angles, both end ladder runners
were straight, and the end top grab iron is mounted with three prongs
rather than the later four prongs. There were a few other very minor
differences but not visually significant enough to be concerned about
in HO modeling.
We do market our running boards (roof walks), ladders, and hand
wheels (brake wheels) and if you ask nicely I'll sell our grab irons
and brake housing/rod/fulcrum, but you need to contact me off list at
mail@kadee.com.

Sam Clarke
Kadee Quality Products

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Garth G. Groff" <ggg9y@...> wrote:

Fred,

Note that none of the Kadee PS-1s represent cars built from 1947
through
1949. These cars did not have stiffening panels in the end roof
sections. Cars built in 1947 and 1947 also lacked the little
rectangular
panels under the ends of the running boards.

The best solution for these early PS-1s is to find some of the old
Front
Range kits. The side sills will need major work, the underframe can
be
replaced by Accurail's aftermarket part, you will probably want to
get
some Intermountain PS-1 ladder and brake sets (also available as
aftermarket parts), and Kadee's running boards are a vast
improvement.
In short, you only want the Front Range body. On 1947 and 1948
cars, you
will also need to shave and sand off the end tabs.

Take a close look at Ed's PS-1 list. You will note that quite a few
early PS-1s were riveted. Most of these were CNW cars. These can
best be
done using Intermountain AAR bodies with their PS-1 and roofs
(available
separately), and extra ladder/brake sets. I have built CNW and IC
cars
like this, though they were post-1950 prototypes. You won't find
the IC
car on Ed's list, as they were built in their own shops using
Pullman-supplied parts.

The Southern was a big buyer of PS-1s, and some 8' door cars were
delivered in 1948, plus many post-1950. The Seaboard also had both
early
and post-1950 8' door cars, including a few 1948 double-door types.
The
C&O received their first cars (6' doors) in 1947, and added more 8'
door
cars in 1950 and 1952. The N&W also had PS-1s, though I think they
came
later. Ed's list should show what you need. Seaboard and Southern
would
be the most likely to be found on the A&D.

Kind regards,


Garth G. Groff

Fred Mullins wrote:
Folks,
When did pullman come out with there PS-1 box cars? I'm trying
to
decide how many I will need on my mid 50's era layout?
I'm assuming that I will still need a few wooden box cars and
lots of
1937 AAR box cars? I have sme kadee box cars and I'm trying to
figure
how many of them I need to keep or sell off?
Thanks for any info.
Fred Mullins





---------------------------------
Make free worldwide PC-to-PC calls. Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger with Voice


Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Jack Burgess
 

I'm sure someone will have more complete information regarding private spurs
vs. team tracks, but in our town (Newark, CA) the SP engineering and
maintenance departments certainly upheld that distinction until the SP was
bought out by the UP. Newark has a large switching yard and a lot of
industrial sidings which were very active in the 70s and 80s. I worked for
the city of Newark and we quickly came to realize that private sidings were
not maintained by the railroad in any way. Most were on private property but
we had some private grade crossings which, if maintained at all, were
maintained by private railroad contractors. So, it would seem that the
railroad kept an accurate inventory of private vs. railroad-owned trackage.
The industries on some of the sidings changed ownership over time and even
types of industries occasionally changed. However, that shouldn't change the
fact that the siding was private. (As a side note, the land on one side of
the yard was originally all owned by SP and SP would not sell parcels to a
new owner unless they needed and agreed to rail service.) Regarding the
abandonment of a siding, remember that the siding is on private property. If
the business is abandoned, the railroad can't just take over the siding. In
this case, the business probably executed a quit claim on the land (and thus
the siding), transferring the land to the railroad. It seems strange that
the CRC would consider a case when "private" could/should be easily
determined by land ownership. On the other hand, as you state, they didn't
rule on tariffs being charged on the basis of private vs. railroad-owner
trackage.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com


Re: Numbers of '44 AAR cars, and others

Larry Kline
 

Ed Hawkins wrote:
I'm considering an article on this subject in Railway Prototype
Cyclopedia. If not there, perhaps in Railmodel Journal.

Ed,
Thanks for the info on these cars and the early version R+3/4 IDE count
of 48,000 cars. My vote is for a comprehensive Railway Prototype
Cyclopedia article (or series of articles)

Larry Kline
Pittsburgh, PA


Re: Narrow gauge Gramps tanks cars

coronadoscalemodels
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Bill Weiss" <wrw13@...> wrote:

This is one for all the narrow minded folks out there :>)

Did the narrow gauge, frameless tank cars always have the Gramps name
painted in the large gray letters on the sides? If they didn't about
what year did they start adding the name to the sides?

Bill
Only some of the UTLX "Van Dyke" tankcars were painted with Gramps
lettering. There is a good listing of which ones were in the
R/Robb "Narrow Gauge Pictorial" Vol. IV. Gramps started using the cars
when the refinery was built in Alamosa in 1938. Not all the Van Dyke
tankcars were leased to Gramps. Some others were used for "Road Oil"
and could be found on all divisions of the D&RGW n.g. and on the RGS.
Some times Gramps cars would be used for "Road Oil" too and pictures of
them can be seen going through the Black Canyon.

Both type V and type VV Van Dyke tanks were used for Gramps although
only 2 of the 7 type V have been confirmed with Gramps lettering.

Stan Schwedler
Coronado Scale Models


Narrow gauge Gramps tanks cars

Bill Weiss
 

This is one for all the narrow minded folks out there :>)

Did the narrow gauge, frameless tank cars always have the Gramps name
painted in the large gray letters on the sides? If they didn't about
what year did they start adding the name to the sides?

Bill


Re: Numbers of '44 AAR cars, and others (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ed Hawkins
 

On Dec 8, 2006, at 8:55 AM, Gatwood, Elden J SAD wrote:

My question is till, what about the vast numbers of later '44 AAR
types, that
did not make it onto Ed Hawkins' list. What were their numbers?
Elden,
I have compiled rosters of various 10'-6" IH postwar AAR box cars built
from 1948 and later with various versions of Improved Dreadnaught Ends
(IDE) used after the 4/4 arrangement. Some of the rosters have been
published in Railmodel Journal, including cars with so-called "dartnot"
ends (see Oct. 1990 RMJ) and the late-version R+3/4 IDE used beginning
in 1955. I have also compiled a roster of AAR box cars with the earlier
R+3/4 IDE (i.e., main corrugations having the rolling pin appearance),
however, I have yet to publish it. I'm considering an article on this
subject in Railway Prototype Cyclopedia. If not there, perhaps in
Railmodel Journal. There were a few other AAR-style box cars using
other proprietary ends, such as the AC&F 4/4 ends used on several
series of Reading, M-K-T, and DT&I box cars.

Roads having the early-version R+3/4 IDE include AA, ACL, BAR (plug
door insulated box cars), C&EI, C&S, C&WC, CB&Q, CNJ, CP, DT&I, Erie,
FW&D, GM&O, GN, GTW, IC, I-GN, ITC, LV, MP, NH (plug doors), NJI&I, NP,
NYC, P&LE, PRR, RDG, Soo Line, SP&S, StLB&M, T&P, UP, WAB, and WM. Some
of these cars had overhanging roofs. Quite a few models representing
these prototype cars have been offered by Branchline Trains. My count
of prototype AAR box cars having early-version R+3/4 IDE is about
48,000 and the cars were built from 1948 to 1954. In addition to the
above list, there were also the unique "box cars" for carrying
cryogenic gases (see RP CYC Vol. 14), although these cars all had small
doors in the ends, roof hatches, and were classified as tank cars.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


SP B-50-12 Boxcars and the availability of information

Peter Weiglin
 

Looking at the following message:

= = =
Fred Mullins wrote:
I would like to learn more about this car. When was it rebuilt and
from what class of car? When did the rebuilding take place and how
long did these cars stay on the rails?
It may not surprise you, Fred, that these were rebuilt from
Class B-50-12. Those were USRA single-sheathed cars, of which SP
received 1000 units. They were rebuilt starting in the late summer of
1949 and continuing for a couple of years. Roughly 650 were rebuilt and
all other survivors either went to MOW service or were scrapped. They
lasted into the 1960s.

also can anybody point me to some photos of these cars? I'm looking
for end detail shots as well.
Thanks for any help!
I'm not aware if there are many photos on line. The Lee
Gautreaux site is one option (if you don't know the URL, please ask).
If you want a reference to a book which has thirty or so photos of the
cars, including the rebuilding process, please ask. I don't want to be
accused of "MAKING YOU BUY A BOOK."

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

= = =

and this one --

Posted by: "benjaminfrank_hom" b.hom@worldnet.att.net benjaminfrank_hom
Date: Fri Dec 8, 2006 10:36 am ((PST))

= = =

Paul Lyons wrote:
"There is an article and and series of photos about the re-building of
these cars in a long past Mainline Modeler. I do not know the issue."

"Southern Pacific B-50-12-A", Pat O'Boyle, Mainline Modeler, October
1992, page 62. Popped right up when I did a Title text search for "B-
50-12" at http://index.mrmag.com .

Ben Hom

= = =

Comment:

It seems that those who are willing to help, such as Tony and Ben, are forced to point, over and over again, to the standard references in the hobby.

While Fred has the right idea, and did ask about books, there are also those folks who somehow expect to find the fruits of others' research labor, furnished on line, for free, and delivered by tomorrow morning please.

The book that Tony was reluctant to describe is Southern Pacific Freight Cars, Volume 4, Box Cars, published by Signature Press and written by . . . Tony himself. Nice plan in there too, on Page 174.

How do I know that? I BOUGHT ONE! Paid for it and everything. (I also bought Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the series.) Those of us who know how much effort Tony puts into these works will tell you that they are cheap at the price.

While everyone starts out with good intentions of helpfulness, over a period of time during which many requests (and not a few demands) are made, those who have done the research can get a little testy when their work is taken for granted.

Fred Mullins has the right attitude, but you have to ask yourself about the manners, presumptuousness, and downright cloddishness of those who created a "gimme" climate in which Tony was chided for "Making you buy a book".

These guys have every right to remain silent when someone asks for help, but they do not. Some knowledgeable folks are coming close to "burnout" dealing with the human chalices ("Fill me! Fill me!") who have confused helpfulness with obligation.

Come on, folks; when someone suggests that a questioner buy a book for reference, the proper reply is NOT, "What? Spend my good money for what I should be able to get here, free?"; and also NOT, "There he goes, plugging his products again."

Tony nor anyone else should ever be inhibited from suggesting that a pertinent book be bought, regardless of the authorship.

There! The glue on my X29 should be about dry by now . . .

Peter Weiglin
Amelia, OH


Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Tom Campbell
 

Hello STMFC List-

I've been chewing on a bit of research for some time and I'm coming
out of long time lurker status for guidance.

I've been studying Sacramento's `R' Street corridor for a few years
now. In the transition era, the `R' Street corridor was a
significant part of Sacramento's switching district and had both the
Southern Pacific and Western Pacific interchanging and serving
businesses here. There were even guest appearances by the Sacramento
Northern from time to time.

My research has been pretty tightly focused, but it has led me down
some interesting paths. Your definition of 'interesting' may vary
<g>.

One of the `finds' is a 1936-1937 California Railroad Commission
(CRC) case that deals specifically with `R' Street. After reading
and rereading the testimony (and supplemental materials), the case
has taught me a great deal about reciprocal switching agreements
among other things. Mostly, that I completely misunderstood what a
reciprocal switching agreement was <g>.

CRC case 4066 dealt with a WP complaint that the SP refused to switch
cars from the interchange at 4th & `R' to two sidings on `R' Street
under a cheap switching tariff ($2.70 a car- which even in the `30s
wasn't enough to pay for the switch) as part of the reciprocal
switching agreement. SP defended itself by claiming these sidings
were team tracks and not private sidings and, as part of the
railroad's own terminal facilities, ineligible for the tariff. SP
contended they were team tracks because the railroad owned the tracks
and the sidings did see a variety of consignees pick up deliveries
there. WP wanted the definition of `private siding' or `team track'
to follow more from the track's actual usage and thought that at
least on one of the sidings its use was primarly as a private
delivery track.

The sidings were both adjacent (right up to the loading doors) to
businesses on `R'. On one of them, nearly all the shipments went to
the business next to the siding (Valley Wholesale Grocery), but SP
was able to prove that at least a few shipments were picked up by
other concerns. One of the exhibits in the case file is an 18 month
record of every car that was delivered to this track. Out of 170
cars, about four were for consignees other than Valley Wholesale.

The other siding was originally built circa 1910 as a private
delivery track for a storage company; however, this original business
later abandoned their siding. At that point the siding's ownership
fell back to SP, and it was designated as a public team track. There
was ample evidence that this second siding was used as a team track,
the adjacent business that moved in later only rarely taking delivery
from this track.

The commission decided that the WP did not prove either of the tracks
was `private' but they did not spell out what definition of `private'
or `team' tracks they used as a benchmark.

I've been broadening my research in an attempt to put this case in
context, but does the list think this `team track that looks like a
private siding' situation was common? From what I've seen, it seems
like it was.

Did the definition of `team track' later (at least by 1950, my
planned modeling date) get locked down legally so that use rather
than ownership was more of a determining factor for tariff
considerations? I do plan on tracking down the 1950 tariff to see if
a team track definition is spelled out in the tariff itself – it
certainly wasn't in 1936.

I'm curious to see if anyone knows of any similar cases elsewhere in
the country.

Thanks for any comments, and certainly suggestions for books and
other research materials/leads that will help me have a better
understanding of this.

Tom Campbell
Elk Grove CA


Re: Numbers of '44 AAR cars, and others (UNCLASSIFIED)

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>
 

Hi Elden:

I just sent you some post-group info to your ACE address. If you would like it sent to another, let me know.

KL


Extra HO Trucks for sale

Brian J Carlson <brian@...>
 

I have a few extra pairs of HO trucks available.
I have 5 pair of P2K B-1 National Trucks for $2.00 a pair,
2 pair of ECW Dalman 2-level trucks with Reboxx wheels for $2.00 a pair
also. Please don't ask me to remove the Reboxx wheels, I'll probably break
the trucks,
1 pair of metal B-1 National trucks probably Cap Line or On Track, I don't
know. $3.00
Shipping to be detemined, $15 takes the whole lot with USPS Priority Mail
thrown in. Please contact me off list if interested.

Brian J Carlson P.E.
Cheektowaga NY


Re: Western Maryland Hoppers

CJ Riley
 

Hi Mark,

It has been a really long time. I have seen lots of stuff on these cars. There
is a WM yahoo group that is probably your best bet for detailed info.

CJ Riley



--- mvlandsw <mvlandsw@hotmail.com> wrote:

I am detailing some Stewart fishbelly WM hoppers. Does anyone know
the dimensions of the channel end supports and the corner post angles?
Are there any pictures or plans available that show the arrangement of
the brake fittings? Thanks, Mark Vinski




____________________________________________________________________________________
Want to start your own business?
Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/r-index


The Keystone Modeler - December 2006

benjaminfrank_hom <b.hom@...>
 

The December issue of The Keystone Modeler is online at
http://www.prrths.com/Keystone%20Modeler/Keystone_Modeler.htm

Here's What I'm Working On
1:48 Harbor Scene by Hugo Pallesen

Model Review – Walthers Platinum Line N6B Cabin Car by Jim Hunter

Making Bowser Better - Modeling the H21 by Bruce Smith

Modeling the PRR's Flat Car Fleet – Part 10 The F34 by Elden Gatwood

Happy Holidays!


Ben Hom

125081 - 125100 of 183407