Cubic Capacity Confusion

Kurt Laughlin <fleeta@...>

I'm compiling a list of the "most common" boxcars for my layout and decided to use the recapitulation lists for each RR in the ORER as a start for finding total quantities for a particular road. I'm a bit puzzled by the rather varied interpretation of cubic capacity values. For example, I see listings for 3712, 3713, 3715, 3716, and 3719 cu ft XMs which appear to all be 40-6 x 9-2 x 10-0 AAR cars. Also, from the RPC 8 article on 10-0 IH XMs, B&O 285000 is 3715, CRP 22057 is 3713, CRP 22501 is 3712, C&O 14111 is 3713. Why the variation? If I fix the length and height at the nominal values then each inch of width accounts for 33-3/4 cu ft, so to get a 1 cu ft difference means a change of about 1/32 of an inch in width or height or a hair over 1/8 inch in length. Were they really measuring or calculating things that closely? Is there a standard procedure for calculating cubic capacity?

Another oddity is that the volume numbers painted on cars do not always match the numbers in the ORER. Some examples: NYC 109445 - marked 2956, listed as 2955. From the RPC 8 article mentioned above, SP 102199 is marked 3782 cu ft, ORER lists it as 3783. I could understand a mistake in repainting, but the SP pics are builder's photos.

KL

Re: C&EI block lettering

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Thanks to Ed Hawkins, Richard Hendrickson and Ted Culotta for the help with my question.

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: Sharing Knowledge: Was Parasitism

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>

Jace Kahn and Dan Stinson could not state the case any better, nor any more fairly. Knowledge sharing is a truly civilized and gracious activity. We are hobbyists, not members of a trade or academic group harboring competing personal agendas.

I have a fairly large personal railroad reference library (and one of the largest such public facilities is just down the street). Although I know full well that the answers to many of the questions that I might, or actually do pose to this erudite list must reside somewhere on the bookshelves or in the stacks, I also realize at the same time that the answers might only come after hours or days of searching (time better spent building steam era freight cars!); and even then the facts will arrive totally without the benefit of being wrapped in the broad rich editorial context so common on this List. The high value of the latter should not be underestimated in any way. It is the heart of this effort IMHO.

Listers undervalue their own knowledge whenever the posted response to a question is an intimidating abrupt 'Look it up!'. It takes not a whit more effort for those who are in the know to simply give a short positive answer, while perhaps at the same time also pointing out the availability of the information in specific reference or references.

Denny
--
Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento

Car and Locomotive Builders Cyclopedias for sale 1957, 1961, and 1966

Captain Dudley

Guys:
I posted 3 Car and Locomotive Builders Cyclopedias up for sale on ebay
today. They are 1957, 1961 and a 1966 version. These are great
reference books for modelers and historians! and they are heavy!!

Mike Dudley

Re: B&O Class W-1A Truck Identification

Richard Hendrickson

On Dec 9, 2006, at 6:19 PM, rwitt_2000 wrote:

I don't have that CBC to compare the photos, but according to an
article in Railway Age (April 12, 1924) it describes the use of arch
bar trucks designed by Edwin C. Washburn, assistant to the president
of the B&O. The trucks were placed on new cars ordered in 1922 with
capacities of 40-ton, 55-ton and 70-ton. The class W-1a were rebuilt
by various car builders ~1922 for the B&O so there is a high
probability that the trucks used were of this Washburn design. The
illustrations of the side frame in the RA article appear very similar
to the one in the photo posted by Ben.
Bob, there is a drawing of the Washburn truck side frame in the 1928
Car Builders' Cyclopedia, as well as a photo of a very similar truck
identified as a "Tatum XLT Improved Arch Bar Truck Used on the
Baltimore & Ohio." Neither is the truck shown in Ben Hom's photo.
I'll stick with my original identification of the truck on the W-1a;
it's unmistakably a Pilcher arch bar truck. I will add that the B&O
was well known (one might even say notorious) for its determination
during the 1920s to keep using arch bar trucks of one design or another
at a time when virtually every other RR in North America was converting
to cast steel side frames. None of the improvements that originated in
the B&O's mechanical department overcame the basic weakness of the arch
bar design, which was that the nuts and bolts holding it together
tended to loosen or fail unless the trucks received regular and
frequent preventive maintenance â€“ which, of course, couldn't be assured
on cars that traveled widely off-line in interchange service and might
not come back through the owner's shops for literally years.

Richard Hendrickson

Re: Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

Richard Hendrickson

On Dec 10, 2006, at 8:34 AM, okiemax wrote:

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?
I've been wondering that myself, so I will hand off your query to the publisher, who subscribes to this list.

Richard Hendrickson

Re: C&EI block lettering

Richard Hendrickson

On Dec 10, 2006, at 2:39 AM, Ted Culotta wrote:

Tony:

I believe that the style to which you are referring came into being at
the beginning of 1937 with the C&EI's first 1937 AAR box cars.
That's what I thought, Ted, until I discovered that I have photos of the large C&EI stenciling on gondolas built as far back as 1910. However, I don't have any evidence of its use on box cars prior to the delivery of the 64000-64999 series '37 AAR cars in January of 1937. C&EI's USRA double sheathed box cars were built ca. 1920 without the billboard stenciling, but C&EI didn't keep those cars and in the 1920s and later its only double sheathed cars with flat side areas large enough for the big C&EI lettering were 36' cars, and I don't know whether the big lettering was applied to them. Other C&EI box cars were single sheathed, and there was a smaller version of the big initials that was applied to them. However, the earliest photographic evidence I have showing that usage dates from 1938 (on a car leased from Mather).

Richard Hendrickson

Billboard question for Richard Hendrickson

okiemax <northtowner@...>

May I have an update on your progress on the billboard reefer book?

armprem

Correction:you ARE NOT impelled

----- Original Message -----
From: "A. Premo" <armprem@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism

For what it is worth;There are many members of this group who may be at
the entry level of the hobby.Many lack the background of the more
experienced hobbyist.For the advancement of the hobby I think we should all
strive to assist the neophyte whenever possible . There is still much that I
have yet to learn about specific prototypes.I look upon this group as sort
of a fellowship,a fraternity if you will.As Mike said,you impelled to
respond to a question.Armand Premo
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism

From time to time the subject as recently titled "Parasitism" seems to
find
its way into discussion on the STMFC. As has been mentioned by others,
none
of us has a copy of every reference book associated with the subject of
this
group...or others. Given that, it is likely that most of us have, from
time
to time, asked for help. A problem I run into relatively often is...where
is
the info that I'm seeking in the stuff I do have? The magazine index is
extremely valuable, of course, but it doesn't have everything AND the
title
may not be of much use. For example, I know I saw a photo in a long ago
Trains Magazine of a pushing contest on the Milw Road in which an
articulated steam engine and an electric engine were attempting to push
against each other to see who had the most tractive effort and adhesion [
the electic engine won, BTW ]. Now...how would one look that up?

I suppose I view the issue somewhat like with the US Constitution's First
Amendment. Free speech. Within certain limitations, you can generally say
what you wish. And now for Brock's Amendment. "I don't have to listen".
The
point is...no one should be offended by someone asking for help on a
subject. At the same time, no one in the STMFC is obligated to respond.
And
no one should be offended by the reply...or non reply. Some replies can
necessarily be a bit complex or they might be missleading. Hence, it might
be better to indicate where the info lies. Note the STMFC rule:

"It should be noted that discussions by the group's members
includes questions and answers regarding the group's subject. However, it
should also be noted that the group is not to be considered necessarily as
a
library with its members prepared to respond to questions or acting as
sources for information. Such responses are entirely voluntary and at no
time is any group member obligated to respond to a request for
information.
In fact, the group is not a good vehicle to transmit large amounts of
information. The group is a good vehicle, however, to provide guidance as
to
where a member might find information."

An interesting example occurred recently on another group. The rather
simple
question was..."Was UP 4-8-4 #833 and oil burner or coal burner?" The
response is...both. However, there is much more to it because the
questioner
is intertested in modeling the engine with a brass model. To avoid
missleading the questioner, a detailed response would be
required...IMO...also requiring research for validation. I didn't have
time
to do an adequate job so I did not respond [ maybe later ]. Incidentally,
responding to such questions can be rewarding and fun. It can also be a
learning project. If one has the time.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006
11:50 AM

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006 11:50 AM

armprem

For what it is worth;There are many members of this group who may be at the entry level of the hobby.Many lack the background of the more experienced hobbyist.For the advancement of the hobby I think we should all strive to assist the neophyte whenever possible . There is still much that I have yet to learn about specific prototypes.I look upon this group as sort of a fellowship,a fraternity if you will.As Mike said,you impelled to respond to a question.Armand Premo

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Brock" <brockm@...>
To: <STMFC@...>
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 11:52 PM
Subject: [STMFC] ADMIN: Parasitism

From time to time the subject as recently titled "Parasitism" seems to find
its way into discussion on the STMFC. As has been mentioned by others, none
of us has a copy of every reference book associated with the subject of this
group...or others. Given that, it is likely that most of us have, from time
to time, asked for help. A problem I run into relatively often is...where is
the info that I'm seeking in the stuff I do have? The magazine index is
extremely valuable, of course, but it doesn't have everything AND the title
may not be of much use. For example, I know I saw a photo in a long ago
Trains Magazine of a pushing contest on the Milw Road in which an
articulated steam engine and an electric engine were attempting to push
against each other to see who had the most tractive effort and adhesion [
the electic engine won, BTW ]. Now...how would one look that up?

I suppose I view the issue somewhat like with the US Constitution's First
Amendment. Free speech. Within certain limitations, you can generally say
what you wish. And now for Brock's Amendment. "I don't have to listen". The
point is...no one should be offended by someone asking for help on a
subject. At the same time, no one in the STMFC is obligated to respond. And
no one should be offended by the reply...or non reply. Some replies can
necessarily be a bit complex or they might be missleading. Hence, it might
be better to indicate where the info lies. Note the STMFC rule:

"It should be noted that discussions by the group's members
includes questions and answers regarding the group's subject. However, it
should also be noted that the group is not to be considered necessarily as a
library with its members prepared to respond to questions or acting as
sources for information. Such responses are entirely voluntary and at no
time is any group member obligated to respond to a request for information.
In fact, the group is not a good vehicle to transmit large amounts of
information. The group is a good vehicle, however, to provide guidance as to
where a member might find information."

An interesting example occurred recently on another group. The rather simple
question was..."Was UP 4-8-4 #833 and oil burner or coal burner?" The
response is...both. However, there is much more to it because the questioner
is intertested in modeling the engine with a brass model. To avoid
missleading the questioner, a detailed response would be
required...IMO...also requiring research for validation. I didn't have time
to do an adequate job so I did not respond [ maybe later ]. Incidentally,
responding to such questions can be rewarding and fun. It can also be a
learning project. If one has the time.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.15.9/571 - Release Date: 12/5/2006 11:50 AM

The ALPS Supplies Situation

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>

I hate to clutter up the list with needless bandwidth, but there are a
number of people who make their own decals for steam era freight
equipment using these printers. I thought that the message might be of
value to some of those people. Please do not respond on list or
continue a thread about the Alps system here as this is not the proper
forum (and proper ones do exist on Yahoo! Groups.)

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Paul Anderson of Systems-Consulting"
<Systems-Consulting@...>
Date: December 9, 2006 2:13:38 PM EST
To: "Systems-Consulting-Paul" <Sales@...>
Subject: The ALPS Supplies Situation

Dear Customer,

As a buyer of ALPS MD-Series printer supplies, we want to keep you
informed on the status
of availability.

All dealers have been asked to submit their requirements for the next
six months by
Tuesday, Dec 12th. A binding Purchase Order is required for the next
three months. ALPS
has informed our one and only distributor that they want a "final"
order placed by Dec
15th.

We will be participating in this final purchase from ALPS. It is
unrealistic for any
single dealer to have the burden of satisfying all demands. We suggest
contacting your
regular dealer ASAP to have a say in how much inventory is acquired.

In addition, As of 8 December 2006 - according to ALPS-USA's Product
Support Manager "ALPS
is indeed the manufacturer of the cartridges. The ribbon material was
developed by ALPS as
a proprietary product and is not used by any other company. Because
ALPS wants to get out
of the retail printer support they are not interested in providing the
ink/media formula
or tooling to others to continue manufacturing the product. I'm very
sorry but it is a

We have been asked to place our "Final" large order for ALPS supplies
by Tuesday, Dec
12th. This will be our supply for the next six months. If you want to
make a purchase in
the next three months, we need to know your requirements now!

We will all do our best to keep the supplies available as long as
possible.

Thanks,

Paul Anderson
President
Systems-Consulting - Maximizing the results of Information Systems
since 1992
89 Main Street, Broad Brook CT 06016-9701
tel:(860)627-5393
web: http://Systems-Consulting.com
mailto:Sales@...
Sesame Database Manager Professional
Your ALPS MD Printers and Supplies Source since 1996
Authorized Xerox Reseller
-----------------------------------------

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.15/581 - Release Date:
12/09/2006 3:41 PM

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Re: C&EI block lettering

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>

Tony:

I believe that the style to which you are referring came into being at the beginning of 1937 with the C&EI's first 1937 AAR box cars.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@...
www.speedwitch.com
(650) 787-1912

Mike Brock <brockm@...>

From time to time the subject as recently titled "Parasitism" seems to find its way into discussion on the STMFC. As has been mentioned by others, none of us has a copy of every reference book associated with the subject of this group...or others. Given that, it is likely that most of us have, from time to time, asked for help. A problem I run into relatively often is...where is the info that I'm seeking in the stuff I do have? The magazine index is extremely valuable, of course, but it doesn't have everything AND the title may not be of much use. For example, I know I saw a photo in a long ago Trains Magazine of a pushing contest on the Milw Road in which an articulated steam engine and an electric engine were attempting to push against each other to see who had the most tractive effort and adhesion [ the electic engine won, BTW ]. Now...how would one look that up?

I suppose I view the issue somewhat like with the US Constitution's First Amendment. Free speech. Within certain limitations, you can generally say what you wish. And now for Brock's Amendment. "I don't have to listen". The point is...no one should be offended by someone asking for help on a subject. At the same time, no one in the STMFC is obligated to respond. And no one should be offended by the reply...or non reply. Some replies can necessarily be a bit complex or they might be missleading. Hence, it might be better to indicate where the info lies. Note the STMFC rule:

"It should be noted that discussions by the group's members
includes questions and answers regarding the group's subject. However, it
should also be noted that the group is not to be considered necessarily as a
library with its members prepared to respond to questions or acting as
sources for information. Such responses are entirely voluntary and at no
time is any group member obligated to respond to a request for information.
In fact, the group is not a good vehicle to transmit large amounts of
information. The group is a good vehicle, however, to provide guidance as to
where a member might find information."

An interesting example occurred recently on another group. The rather simple question was..."Was UP 4-8-4 #833 and oil burner or coal burner?" The response is...both. However, there is much more to it because the questioner is intertested in modeling the engine with a brass model. To avoid missleading the questioner, a detailed response would be required...IMO...also requiring research for validation. I didn't have time to do an adequate job so I did not respond [ maybe later ]. Incidentally, responding to such questions can be rewarding and fun. It can also be a learning project. If one has the time.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Schuyler Larrabee

Paul C. Koehler:

All switches connecting to the railroad were owned by the
to the clear point.
True, AFAIK.

Beyond the clear point it was the property owner's
responsibility to pay for the installation and maintenance of
the track.
That's the problem with absolute statements. What you say, Paul, is >usually< true, but not
always<. I know that there are examples, based on work orders in a couple of archives, where the
railroad performed everything at their own expense to lay the siding and maintain it, because of the
volume of business anticipated out of the business. Cases in point include spurs off the ERIE in
Youngstown to steel plants and steel fabricators.

SGL

Re: Steam Era Reefers Letter For Southern Pacific

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>

Bob Chaparro wrote:
Somewhere I read that the Southern Pacific had reefers on its roster lettered for the SP and not PFE. As the story goes, these cars were acquired from the El Paso & Southwestern in the 1920s.
Yes, indeed. One place you might have read this is in my Vol. 4 on SP box cars (includes ventilated cars and refrigerators).

Does anyone know more about:
What service these cars typically saw?
Were they in captive service?
What was the disposition of the cars?
They were used in on-line company service exclusively and were NOT in revenue service; SP was of course provided with any revenue reefers by PFE. They can be seen in ORER issues to have slowly faded away until about 1960. All were scrapped AFAIK.

I didn't find anything in the index of the PFE book.
Logical, since they were not connected in any way to PFE.

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: B&O Class W-1A Truck Identification

rwitt_2000 <rmwitt@...>

--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...>
wrote:

On Dec 6, 2006, at 3:16 PM, benjaminfrank_hom wrote:

Finsishing up an article for the November-December issue of The B&O
Modeler on Class W-1 and subclass hoppers and came across some odd
trucks. I've uploaded a detail photo in the STMFC files section
titled "B&O 334344 Class W-1A Truck Detail.JPG":
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFC/files

Anyone know the type of this truck? Thanks in advance!
Ben, it's an arch bar truck with a Pilcher trussed side frame. See the
1922 Car Builders' Cyclopedia, p. 628.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard,

I don't have that CBC to compare the photos, but according to an
article in Railway Age (April 12, 1924) it describes the use of arch
bar trucks designed by Edwin C. Washburn, assistant to the president
of the B&O. The trucks were placed on new cars ordered in 1922 with
capacities of 40-ton, 55-ton and 70-ton. The class W-1a were rebuilt
by various car builders ~1922 for the B&O so there is a high
probability that the trucks used were of this Washburn design. The
illustrations of the side frame in the RA article appear very similar
to the one in the photo posted by Ben.

Bob Witt
Indianapolis, Indiana

Steam Era Reefers Letter For Southern Pacific

Bob Chaparro <thecitrusbelt@...>

Somewhere I read that the Southern Pacific had reefers on its roster
lettered for the SP and not PFE. As the story goes, these cars were
acquired from the El Paso & Southwestern in the 1920s.

Does anyone know more about:
What service these cars typically saw?
Were they in captive service?
What was the disposition of the cars?

I didn't find anything in the index of the PFE book.

Thanks.

Bob Chaparro
Moderator
Citrus Industry Modeling Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/citrusmodeling/

Re: Team tracks that look like private sidings?

Tom Campbell

Ok... trying again...

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Just to clear up a couple of things.

There were certainly industry sidings on 'R' Street that wandered off onto private property;
the two tracks in the CRC case were definitely on city streets. There are examples of
sidings that even though they are situated on R Street itself, were considered `private
industrial spurs' by virtue of business paying a lease for their use. A few sidings, as in the
two in this case, were considered team tracks and businesses that happened to lie
adjacent could take delivery from these tracks, but they could not demand preferential
treatment.

The original franchise for SP's line down `R' Street traced its lineage to the Sacramento
Valley Railroad in the mid 19th century. From the ICC valuation reports of 'R' Street it
looks like individual sidings each had their own franchises- for many of the sidings the
`carrier' retained the franchise but with a lease agreement the spur could be considered
'private'.

To help explain how a siding could be at one time considered `private' but later revert to
railroad control, I'll quote the testimony regarding that second siding from the case. This
is F. C. Nelson, assistant general freight agent for SP:

"The track adjacent to the J.L. Russill plant is a portion of a spur originally built for the
Capitol and Sacramento Van & Storage Company under the so-called old industrial basis,
whereunder the industry paid for the perishable material, such as ties and grading, and
the railroad paid the remainder. Eventually, the track having been abandoned by the
original owner, being maintained by the Southern Pacific, we came into complete
ownership of the track."

Neither land nor track ownership was ever a question in this case. It really turned on
whether the CRC would follow WP's suggestion (drawn from an earlier ICC ruling) that a
track's definition, such as the distinction between private and team tracks, should depend
on usage.

Looking at the decision for the umpteenth time it appears that the CRC was willing to
consider it. They decided that the WP was unable to prove `exclusive or preferential use'
for either siding. The commission noted that "Although the Grocery Company handles the
majority of the shipments from and to one of these tracks it should be observed that such
a condition may normally arise from the amount of business done by the Grocery
Company and the convenient location of its plant with respect to said track."

This is the spur that saw 166 of 170 carloads go to the Valley Wholesale Grocery over an
18 month period. I'd hazard a guess that the Western Pacific felt this qualified as
'preferential' usage. Many of those 166 carloads were shipments that Valley Wholesale
Grocery shared with other grocery businesses. They used the spur as their own team track
in that the other grocery businesses would often unload from the car directly to their
trucks without the goods going into the warehouse.

From everything I've seen, I agree with Dennis. Team tracks are only team tracks when the
railroad designates them as such- and there is always a list somewhere. One of the
exhibits in the case is a letter from a few years before the case from the SP to the WP
listing out which industries are adjacent to team tracks.

This was a depression era case. I wonder if the SP designated this track as a team track
partially to deny the business (by denying the cheap tariff in the reciprocal switching
agreement) of the Wholesale Grocery to the WP in an era when business was tight.

Tom Campbell
Elk Grove CA

Re: Parasitism

rrhistorian

There are also at least a few individuals on this list who are not
model railroaders, but who are searching for information about freight
cars to support academic research and/or railroad preservation.
Speaking as one of those (who does research for both purposes) I ask
questions here because both the primary and secondary sources on
freight car history and railroad operations are both poorly indexed
and cataloged and held by very few libraries. Detailed references to
primary and secondary materials are very helpful in this regard.

"Free" information is also very helpful as most academics (especially
us lowly graduate students) are not provided with any kind of research
budget -- making 'buying the book' a unteneable option.

I remain most grateful for the information I have learned from this
forum - and it has made me more efficent in being one of the few
academics actively pursuing railroad related topics in the US.

Tom Cornillie

Re: Parasitism

--- In STMFC@..., "Justin Kahn" <harumd@...> wrote:
....
Just to deal with steam era freight cars, I have availed myself of
this list
a number of times, because I would like to represent a particular
car from a
particular prototype railroad, and although there has been published
material on the road, my interest is too limited to invest in it:
e.g., I
have received helpful information on Pere Marquette cars, and
although often
tempted to buy the definitive book, I think I have (or will have)
perhaps
three PM cars in all, and it is hard to justify spending \$30-40 for the
research on them...
This is exactly what most of us face, of course. There is an amazing
synergy to be able to participate in the kind of immediate exhange of
information the 'net allows. Sometimes we no longer have to wait 5
or 15 years for the definitive book or article to come out (or 'til we
can find that long-out-of-print source). The only thing I'll add to
this interesting conversation is that even though the repeated
reference to key source books can be tedious to those who are most in
the know, I think on balance these lists sell a whole lot more books
than they replace. For every inconsiderate soul who expects a quick
free answer, there are a score of silent readers who sit up and take
notice, and actually go out and buy the book, once they learn a bit
more specifically what stuff is in it. That's how I make my book
choices these days, and I also learn a ton from the lists about what
books to recommend to friends (or even strangers I bump into in hobby
shops) who themselves have increasingly specific information needs as
they delve into prototype modeling. Thanks and best,

Chris Frissell
Polson, MT

 135221 - 135240 of 193577