Date   

Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Ed, definitely an ACF style frame. Here are my desktop
measurements with a pair of calipers as best as I can do.

Outside tank diameter 8'0"
Tank jacket length 32'7"
Tank length 33'10"
Frame length at corners 36'1"

I wondered why these were so cheap on Ebay... :-)

Richard,

Does the model have an ACF-style underframe? I went through all the ACF
tank car data and can find NO 8,000-gallon ICC-105s were ever built.
The closest I can find is an order of 6 cars (PCIX 100-105, lot 2932),
which were 7,350 gallons for transporting liquid carbon dioxide. I have
all the underframe and tank dimensions if it's worth checking to see if
the model could possibly be based on this series of cars.

Thirteen more 7.350-gallon ICC-105A cars were built in March 1952, PCIX
106-113 and SHPX 3732-3736, as lot 3646B. This is all I can find.

Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Heinz Vinegar Cars.

boyds1949 <E27ca@...>
 

Back in March, Bruce Griffin sent the message below concerning Heinz
vinegar cars. A search showed a lot of responses, but none covered
the painting and lettering.

Heinz had a vinegar plant in Winchester, Va. I have seen a photo with
the plant in the background and there were 3 or 4 wooden tank cars on
the siding. I have one of the Overland cars, but I have no clue how it
should be painted and lettered. Does anyone know what color it was and
if decals were ever produced which would be correct for this car?

With regard to today's thread on brass tank car models, anyone
interested in the subject should go back and read message number
29762. Tim O'Connor's list with Richard Hendrickson's notes and
comments is like reading an encyclopedia.

John King

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "bdg1210" <Bruce_Griffin@...> wrote:

Group,

While watching a B&O video of movements in Ohio in the late 1950's I
saw a Heinz vinegar car on a train. The car was moving west from
Willard yard. It looked like something from the 1920's with its
multi-banded horizontal tanks on a flat car frame. Is there a model
for such a car? Was this an amonoly in the 1950's?

Bruce D. Griffin
Summerfield, NC


Re: Calling Charley Slater

charles slater
 

Bill its; cslater@bak.rr.com or atsfcondr42@hotmail.com see you in October
Charlie

From: "lnbill" <bwelch@uucf.org>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Calling Charley Slater
Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 12:54:39 -0000

I need to send something to ATSF modeler Charley Slater. I looked
through the membership list and did not see his name but could have
missed him. Can someone send me his email address. My address is
bwelch@uucf.org

Bill Welch
_________________________________________________________________
A new home for Mom, no cleanup required. All starts here. http://www.reallivemoms.com?ocid=TXT_TAGHM&loc=us


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Ed Hawkins
 

On Aug 21, 2007, at 4:54 PM, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

SACX 687 was a 6,000 gal. car, as were many other ICC-105s built for
chlorine and similar service. As usual, the absence of evidence proves
nothing, but I have a lot of photos and data on these small ICC-105s
and I have yet to find any example of an 8,000 gal. car. And believe
me, I've looked hard for one, because I also have one of Overland's 8K
insulated ICC-105 models.

Richard Hendrickson
Richard,
Does the model have an ACF-style underframe? I went through all the ACF
tank car data and can find NO 8,000-gallon ICC-105s were ever built.
The closest I can find is an order of 6 cars (PCIX 100-105, lot 2932),
which were 7,350 gallons for transporting liquid carbon dioxide. I have
all the underframe and tank dimensions if it's worth checking to see if
the model could possible be based on this series of cars.

Thirteen more 7.350-gallon ICC-105A cars were built in March 1952, PCIX
106-113 and SHPX 3732-3736, as lot 3646B. This is all I can find.
Regards,
Ed Hawkins


Re: Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Andy Miller wrote:
. . . if the primary concern with a Howe truss diagonal is buckling (in compression, buckling occurs far before outright material failure), then it should be much less of a problem in a car side than in a bridge, because the car side has all the sheathing attached to the ribs, including the diagonals, and this is a substantial deterrent to buckling, at least in the plane of the car side.
This is exactly right. But the early truss-frame, single-sheath cars were explicitly designed WITHOUT letting the truss sides do any work, and the underframe was beefy enough to carry all the load. This is partly true even as late as the USRA single-sheath cars, whose underframe is substantially overdesigned if the car side trusses were credited as carrying much load.
This VERY conservative approach was decried by those who wished to greatly reduce car weight, in part by reducing underframe sections, and by the first ARA underframes of the early 1920s, that's exactly what happened. Obviously any later car DOES credit the side truss with carrying capacity.
The stouter posts in a Pratt truss help resist outward bulging, and accordingly were advocated as superior to Howe trusses for car sides. But the converse is that Pratt braces (diagonals) are relatively lighter, and those play some role in resisting torsion of the car body. I think if you read the car design literature (which was very active in the 1920s), you will see not only that car designers understood bridges perfectly well, but also that they had concerns about car frame performance which goes beyond bridge issues.
This entire matter is NOT simply understood in terms of bridges, nor of "wood vs. steel" ideas, nor of "conservatism" of railroad car designers (apparently relative to bridge designers, in some accounts).

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: Question about 1950s SRLX Reefers

Frank Greene
 

"rrhistorian" <rrhistorian@hotmail.com> wrote:
To broaden my original question a bit - I would also greatly
appreciate any references to works that discuss the transition from
ice to mechanical reefers in terms of both design and operation. I am
not interested in this for modeling purposes, but to better understand
the significance of preserved cars.
Tom, I can recommend:

"Pacific Fruit Express" <http://www.signaturepress.com/pfe2.html>.

"Burlington Bulletin" No. 12 <http://www.burlingtonroute.com/costore/bb.htm>.

I'm sure there are additional sources, but these will keep you in reading material that lasts a while.

Frank Greene
Memphis, TN


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 21, 2007, at 1:27 PM, Tim O'Connor wrote:

... you mentioned that the 8k insulated 105 car was bogus.
Elden

Although I can't say the 8k ACF "hi-pressure" type car (OMI 3134)
represents an actual car, I do have a scan of SACX 687, which is
about the same size, leased to PPG Chemicals in the 1960's. So
105's of this type and general appearance did exist.
SACX 687 was a 6,000 gal. car, as were many other ICC-105s built for
chlorine and similar service. As usual, the absence of evidence proves
nothing, but I have a lot of photos and data on these small ICC-105s
and I have yet to find any example of an 8,000 gal. car. And believe
me, I've looked hard for one, because I also have one of Overland's 8K
insulated ICC-105 models.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Miller, Andrew S. <asmiller@...>
 

The issue, as already noted, was whether the longest members, the
diagonals, would be in compression or tension. In wood construction,
joints in tension are inherently weak, so putting the diagonals in
compression was preferred. Furthermore, wood required a much larger
cross section for any given design load, so a wood member would be less
prone to buckling than a steel or iron member designed for the same
load. That's why in bridge construction, steel and iron bridges were
Pratt trusses, and wooden bridges were Howe. However, if the primary
concern with a Howe truss diagonal is buckling (in compression,
buckling occurs far before outright material failure), then it should
be much less of a problem in a car side than in a bridge, because the
car side has all the sheathing attached to the ribs, including the
diagonals, and this is a substantial deterrent to buckling, at least in
the plane of the car side.


regards,

Andy Miller

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Thompson
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2007 8:06 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Pratt vs. Howe boxcar trusses

Andy Carlson wrote:
I think that the Howe truss designed car was familiar with the RR's
back when cars were mostly of all wood construction. The engineering
of wood trusses takes advantage of the greater strength of
compression
for wood- hence the Howe truss. Later, when steel underframes and SS
cars became popular, basic familiarity with Howe trusses caused a lot
of steel framed boxcars to be built with the Howe truss with it's
structural members in compression. As early engineering students
quickly learn, steel is much stronger in tension, and bridge trusses
take advantage of this property to keep the amount of steel used to
the minimum. The enlightened RR engineering departments recognized
this when the Pratt truss was selected with it's structural members
taking advantage of steel's tensile strength. Not all RR engineering
departments were so enlightened- hence the large numbers of Howe
steel
trussed cars being made.
This is a good summary of the bridge perspective, Andy, but it

misses two points. First, steel trusses were essentially universal in
bridge building after about 1880, and all their superior features were
well recognized, even by car designers. To see this, read the MCB
proceedings in the first two decades of the 20th century. Yet Howe
truss car framing was still being built. Your idea that somehow the
bridge guys were "enlightened" and the poor mechanical engineers
designing cars were decades behind, just isn't true.
Second, the car side truss has to do a job not required of
the
bridge truss (or at least not in the same way): it has to resist
sideways and twisting forces. The car-design advocates of the Howe for
car sides believed it was superior in that aspect--though their
colleagues of the opposite persuasion argued vehemently against them.
You can see this in the ARA Mechanical Division proceedings all through

the 1920s.
Denny's belief that the Howe is lighter is wrong: in either
steel or wood it is heavier, though of course, as Andy observed, it has

to be that way in wood to provide the compression strength in the long
members. But for bridges, the modest difference in weight is of no real

consequence.

Anthony Thompson
Dept. of Materials Science & Engineering
University of California, Berkeley
thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net




Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Tim O'Connor
 

... you mentioned that the 8k insulated 105 car was bogus.
Elden

Although I can't say the 8k ACF "hi-pressure" type car (OMI 3134)
represents an actual car, I do have a scan of SACX 687, which is
about the same size, leased to PPG Chemicals in the 1960's. So
105's of this type and general appearance did exist.

Tim O'Connor


CV flatcar lengths

mjmcguirk@...
 

Marty,
Funny you should mention this as I had the same question several
years ago. FWIW, here's what I concluded after much shearching
through class sheets, OER's, and Car Builder Cyclopedia's. The 36'-
10" dimension of CV's 7500-7609, 8300-8799, and 9300-9799 refers to
the length of the car deck while 37'-5" is the length to the end of
the draft gear/coupler pockets/strikers. If you compare flat car
plans/pictures from the Car Builder Cyclopedia's with the OER's you
can see that the car length stenciling tends to match the OER's car
length but the floor plan length are anywhere from 6" to 1' longer. I
believe this is from an ICC order where the physical characteristics
of a car (capacity, or deck area for a flat car) listed in the OER
were used to determine the applicable tariff. I too thought the
Tichy car would be an excellent starting point until I realized that
it was to long and have been trying to figure out the best way to
shorten it. Good Luck and keep us updated on you effort!
Glenn Annis
annisgc@svcable.net


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Richard;



Thanks for the info on those cars!



I remember you also commenting on the OVL 10k UTLX "X-3" cars, but I don't
recall what you found wrong with them (I do remember you said there were some
issues). Was it the presence of ladders and platforms on both sides, or was
there more to it than that?



And, on those GATC 2-dome and 3-dome insulated cars, do you know what number
series' they were in in GATX?



Lastly, you mentioned that the 8k insulated 105 car was bogus. Is there any
way of modifying this car to be something correct, like replacing the valve
casing with a dome, or is that just unheard of to do with a brass tank? This
is the one with those oddball platforms + a stepped handrail around the valve
casing that makes it appear like some kind of auto "lead" car like you found
in smaller sizes...



Thanks!



Elden Gatwood





________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Richard Hendrickson
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:47 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Overland Models Tank Cars



On Aug 20, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

I came across an ad for Overland Models from '93 or so showing a
number of tank cars:

COLX 1068 "Western Asphalt", insulated 10,000 gal
GATX 1929, insulated 10,000 gal
SHPX 4035 "Cities Service", insulated 10,000 gal
USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly
uninsulated
GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but
clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated
8,000 gal w/platform
PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome

Do these match real cars? In particular, what about the Pennzoil car?
When was it in service?
General Warning: Some of the Overland tank car models of that vintage
are correct, but many were painted and lettered in bogus paint schemes,
often based on photos of vaguely similar cars in various issues of the
Car Builders' Cyclopedias Don't trust any of them in the absence of
documentary evidence.

I know the Western Asphalt car is correct, as I supplied the data on
which the model was based. The reporting marks were CDLX, however
(California Despatch Line), an error that OL also made in the decals
for this model (though it's fairly easy to correct).

The model identified as GATX 1929 may be correct for the GATX cars of
the late 1920s, but the number is bogus. GATC used to paint and letter
demo cars with the year of their construction as the car number, but of
course those cars never went into revenue service with those numbers.

SHPX leased 10K gal. insulated Type 27s to Cities Service; there's a
photo of SHPX 4039 in the 1940 CBC. But I don't know how accurately
the model represents this prototype.

USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly
uninsulated
The cars in this series were standard GATC Type 30 10K gal. ICC-103s.

GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but
clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated
8,000 gal w/platform
Photo of DUPX 2656 in the 1937 CBC.

PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
The model represented a GATX car that was in bulk wine service in the
late 1960s (I provided the photos and data for that one, too). The
larger center dome indicated that the prototype had been converted from
a single compartment to a three compartment car and kept its original
center dome; GATC had numerous three compartment cars, both insulated
and non-insulated, that had been converted in that fashion. But DRX
2148 wasn't a GATC car, it was a car built by the Pressed Steel Car Co.
for North American and leased to Deep Rock in the late 1920s and early
'30s by North American. There's a photo of DRX 2157 in the 1931 CBC.
The Pennzoil model is entirely bogus. Pennzoil operated a sizable
fleet of tank cars in the 1920s but, like many private owners, sold its
tank cars in favor of leasing cars when the economic bad times of the
depression came along, and the PAX cars disappeared from the ORERs ca.
1931. In any case, only four of them were three compartment cars and
none of those were insulated.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: 65 ft. gons

Gatwood, Elden J SAD <Elden.J.Gatwood@...>
 

Ed;

They carried everything their brethren did, although the railroads tended to
assign them a bit more to services appropriate for what they bought them for.



Structural steel included flanged beams, channel, ship channel, elevator bar,
bar stock, "Z"s, "T"s, "U" channels (deeper than regular channel), as well as
intermediate semi-finished product like blooms, billets, ingots, stools and
molds, and cold and hot sheet (see burned looking PRR G26 in Color Guide 3).



Intended usage was stock over 50' in length, but they often got loads shorter
than that, too.



I have photos of them also in scrap service, limestone, sand, gravel, and any
number of manufactured products.



Steel slabs were also a favorite, stacked 5 or 6 high with spacer dunnage,
tilted to make them lean against a side. There are a couple neat photos Rich
Burg has of a shifted slab load in a G26. Neat.



I have never seen a photo of a pre-assembled tower, as they would likely be
too big; but I have seen loads I thought might be the parts used on something
like that, as well as parts for overhead cranes, long pressure vessels,
bridge parts, girders, and other really long stuff overhanging the ends. The
Bethlehem Steel photo collection is great for this, as they were really proud
of what they could assemble and ship.



Elden Gatwood



________________________________

From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ed_mines
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:41 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] 65 ft. gons



Besides structural steel what would be some common loads for 65 ft.
steam era gons?

Would structural steel be I beams and the like?

Were electrical transmission towers preassembled (drilled and assembled
into subsections)? They would make interesting gon loads.

Years ago I met with a man who worked on a railroad during the summer
in the early '50s. He told me some kind of metal was shipped in bales
in these long gons (not scrap).

Ed


Re: Overland Models Tank Cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Aug 20, 2007, at 5:51 PM, Kurt Laughlin wrote:

I came across an ad for Overland Models from '93 or so showing a
number of tank cars:

COLX 1068 "Western Asphalt", insulated 10,000 gal
GATX 1929, insulated 10,000 gal
SHPX 4035 "Cities Service", insulated 10,000 gal
USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly
uninsulated
GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but
clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated
8,000 gal w/platform
PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome

Do these match real cars? In particular, what about the Pennzoil car?
When was it in service?
General Warning: Some of the Overland tank car models of that vintage
are correct, but many were painted and lettered in bogus paint schemes,
often based on photos of vaguely similar cars in various issues of the
Car Builders' Cyclopedias Don't trust any of them in the absence of
documentary evidence.

I know the Western Asphalt car is correct, as I supplied the data on
which the model was based. The reporting marks were CDLX, however
(California Despatch Line), an error that OL also made in the decals
for this model (though it's fairly easy to correct).

The model identified as GATX 1929 may be correct for the GATX cars of
the late 1920s, but the number is bogus. GATC used to paint and letter
demo cars with the year of their construction as the car number, but of
course those cars never went into revenue service with those numbers.

SHPX leased 10K gal. insulated Type 27s to Cities Service; there's a
photo of SHPX 4039 in the 1940 CBC. But I don't know how accurately
the model represents this prototype.

USAX 10936 "United States Army", labeled as insulated but clearly
uninsulated
The cars in this series were standard GATC Type 30 10K gal. ICC-103s.

GATX 62983 "Schenectady Chemicals", labeled as uninsulated but
clearly insulated 8,000 gal w/platform
DUPX 2690 "DuPont", labeled as uninsulated but clearly insulated
8,000 gal w/platform
Photo of DUPX 2656 in the 1937 CBC.

PAX 359 "Pennzoil", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
DRX 2148 "Deep-Rock", insulated 3-comp w/larger center dome
The model represented a GATX car that was in bulk wine service in the
late 1960s (I provided the photos and data for that one, too). The
larger center dome indicated that the prototype had been converted from
a single compartment to a three compartment car and kept its original
center dome; GATC had numerous three compartment cars, both insulated
and non-insulated, that had been converted in that fashion. But DRX
2148 wasn't a GATC car, it was a car built by the Pressed Steel Car Co.
for North American and leased to Deep Rock in the late 1920s and early
'30s by North American. There's a photo of DRX 2157 in the 1931 CBC.
The Pennzoil model is entirely bogus. Pennzoil operated a sizable
fleet of tank cars in the 1920s but, like many private owners, sold its
tank cars in favor of leasing cars when the economic bad times of the
depression came along, and the PAX cars disappeared from the ORERs ca.
1931. In any case, only four of them were three compartment cars and
none of those were insulated.

Richard Hendrickson


65 ft. gons

ed_mines
 

Besides structural steel what would be some common loads for 65 ft.
steam era gons?

Would structural steel be I beams and the like?

Were electrical transmission towers preassembled (drilled and assembled
into subsections)? They would make interesting gon loads.

Years ago I met with a man who worked on a railroad during the summer
in the early '50s. He told me some kind of metal was shipped in bales
in these long gons (not scrap).

Ed


Re: CV flat car lengths

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Martin McGuirk <mjmcguirk@...> wrote:

I've managed to run into a confusing situation with regards to the
length of two classes of Central Vermont flat cars. This project
started simple enough - I was going to use a Tichy flat -- then
noticed the cars are stenciled "Lngth 36'-10" -- obviously shorter
than the Tichy flats.

So I decided this may make a worthwhile scratchbuilding project. So I
dug out more photos and my official railroad freight car data sheets.
All the cars in the photos have a length of 36'-10". Adding to the
confusion official paperwork lists the overall length of 37'-5" --

Is one correct and one in error? Or is it possible one is measuring
the length over the strikers and the other is showing the length over
the end beams?

Obviously, I'm trying to figure out where to measure the overall
length from to build the model to the correct length.


Anyone run into a similar situation?

Marty

What seems to be the problem, Marty? I looked up the cars in the 1/58
ORER (I assume it's CV 7517 –7677 and/or 7700 – 7781 you are
interested in). The ORER shows the inside length to be 36'-10" and the
outside length to be 37'-5". Looking at the key at the back of the
book (yes, the ORER does have a key) the INSIDE length of a flatcar is
to be the length of the load carrying platform, while the OUTSIDE
length is the length over the strikers, exclusive of the couplers.
37'-5" – 36'-10" = 7"/2 = 3 1/2" per end, which sounds reasonable for
a striker casting to me.

Dennis


Re: Trainman 70 ton Triple Hoppers

steel77086@...
 

Gentlemen,

Thanks to all who responded to my question re. the Atlas/Trainman 70
ton hoppers. I was
especially glad to learn that the B&O had a bunch(even if second-hand) in
the 1960's. I have a few which will
look good behind my GP-30's.

Vince Altiere



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour


Re: Calling Charley Slater

Westerfield <westerfield@...>
 

Bill - Try cslater@bak.rr.com - Al Westerfield

----- Original Message -----
From: lnbill
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:54 AM
Subject: [STMFC] Calling Charley Slater


I need to send something to ATSF modeler Charley Slater. I looked
through the membership list and did not see his name but could have
missed him. Can someone send me his email address. My address is
bwelch@uucf.org

Bill Welch


Re: NSC Ends (was) True Line 40 foot CN boxcar models

jim peters
 

Marty,

I'll take any NSC ends you wish to dispose of . . . contact me off list.

Jim Peters
Coquitlam, BC


From: "cvsne" <mjmcguirk@cox.net>
Reply-To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Re: True Line 40 foot CN boxcar models
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:17:58 -0000

Bill,

I've managed to round up a few of these -- the maple leaf cars are
about gone (at least I can't find any more!) but it's fairly
straightforward to add leafs to the cars with the plain CN lettering.

They do add a nice variety of ends to my strings of Red Caboose/IMWX
1937 AAR cars --

One problem -- the initials "C.N." were not, to the best of my
knowledge, stenciled on the doors of the steel cars.

My second problem is the stash of NSC ends I have been rounding up over
the years from Dan Kirlin and Sylvan . . . doesn't look like I have
much use for them!

Marty

_________________________________________________________________
Windows Live Hotmail is the next generation of MSN Hotmail.� It�s fast, simple, and safer than ever and best of all � it�s still free. Try it today! www.newhotmail.ca?icid=WLHMENCA146


Calling Charley Slater

lnbill <bwelch@...>
 

I need to send something to ATSF modeler Charley Slater. I looked
through the membership list and did not see his name but could have
missed him. Can someone send me his email address. My address is
bwelch@uucf.org

Bill Welch


Re: CV flat car lengths

Ted Culotta <tculotta@...>
 

Marty,

This discrepancy could be the length over the deck vs. length to face
of coupler or some other pertinent dim that was "outside" of the deck
length.

Regards,
Ted Culotta

Speedwitch Media
645 Tanner Marsh Road, Guilford, CT 06437
info@speedwitch.com
www.speedwitch.com
(203) 747-0190

120581 - 120600 of 186186