Date   

Re: random questions

Richard Hendrickson
 

Because I was out of town over the weekend, I'm a bit late getting to this
particular party, but I do want to add a couple of notes to Byron Rose's
insightful and very useful comments. Byron is a superb modeler with vast
experience, so his advice is well worth taking seriously. At the same
time, we need to bear in mind that Byron models freight cars as highly
detailed static display models, the way other people model aircraft, ships,
motor vehicles, and such, which sometimes leads to a "take no prisoners"
approach. Those of us who build models to operate on layouts or dioramas
may feel that .008 grab irons and .007 X .020 brass sill steps are a bit
over the top, and simply too fragile to use on models that must sometimes
be handled and may even (perish the thought!) get derailed. (Please note
that in saying this I am NOT arguing that operating highly detailed rolling
stock models on a layout is a waste of time or that freight cars will break
and shed pieces unless all the details are oversize and molded on a la
Model Die Casting; I have no sympathy with those who argue that models are
good enough if they look okay from three feet away or who can't get a well
detailed model on the track without breaking it.)

In light of the above, I unrepentantly admit that I routinely use oversize
wire grab irons and A-line steps, I don't model brake rigging and other
underbody detail unless it's visible in profile, I leave the uncoupling
rods on my couplers because the staging tracks on my diorama mandate
magnetic uncoupling, and make some other minor compromises in the interest
of durability and reliable operation. I can only hope that Byron doesn't
turn out to be the gatekeeper at the model railroad equivalent of Valhalla.

By the way, Byron, it's easy to make sharp corners in A-line steps without
breaking them. I hit 'em with a quick jolt from my resistance soldering
tweezers until they glow a little, then plunge them into water. Thus
annealed, they can be bent into any shape you want. Just don't overdo it;
too much juice for too long will melt (or, in the extreme case, vaporize)
them.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: Overland tank car

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

-----Original Message-----
Dave, if you'll e-mail me the details of your modeling location and era, I
can probably send you scans of several likely prototypes. But finding
lettering for some of them may be a challenge! I've got at least one of
the models, too, so maybe we can either brainstorm decal sources or get
some decals made which will do the job.
I bounce back and forth between 2 dates: 1944 and 1950. I bounce back &
forth between 2 locations: WP west of Oroville (right now I'm thinking
Oakland, perhaps to Niles) and DRGW east of Salt Lake (centered on the
Geneva Mill near Provo). Either way some representation of the steel
industry will be included.

In 1950, WP handled a daily average of 5 carloads of chemicals, 6 each for
Gas & diesel fuels, 1 for gas, 4 for edible oils, and 3 for ammonium sulfate
(probably boxcars). In Oakland there was one large electrical goods mfgr who
made transformers, which if they're talking about those on utility poles,
would have been filled with chemicals.

DRGW wasn't that different, maybe 7 cars/day of chemicals.

Dave Nelson


New Haven 17000-17274

ted@...
 

In 1937, the NH built these 75 flat cars at their Readville shops
using welded underframes furnished by Bethlehem. Does anyone have
any information, drawings, etc. for these underframes? The only
photo I can find of a Bethlehem welded underframe is in the 1940 CBC
and it's too short. Maybe some other roads used similar underframes
for their own purposes or received built up cars with welded
underframes of a similar size. The cars were 52'6" over the pulling
surfaces, 50'0" over striking plates, 49'3-1/4" over the end sills,
39'0" over truck centers, 5'8" wheel base, 9'2-1/2" between side
sills (deck width) and 10'2-1/2" over the stake pockets. Many of you
may know these cars as some were modified in the early 1940's for
TOFC service. Thanks in advance for your help.

Regards,
Ted Culotta


Re: Overland tank car

Richard Hendrickson
 

Tim O'Connor wrote, in response to Dave Nelson's inquiry:

Figuring out prototypes for Overland tank cars isn't easy! But
I think this -type- of car could be used for asphalt, or perhaps
caustic soda (lye), or coal tar, or gasoline. I bought several of
those ACF cars when they were available at 80 bucks or less. Quite
a bargain compared to the newest stuff!
Figuring it out ain't easy because most of the models in that series were
generic. However, Tim's right that the kit Dave is asking about
represented insulated ICC-103/104s, and the dimensions are right for AC&F
Type 27s. Most of the prototypes didn't have the dome platforms and
railings (though it would be a simple matter, of course, to unsolder and
remove those), but SHPX received a bunch of cars with the platforms and
railings in the late 1930s and '40s which they leased to DuPont, Matheson,
and similar chemical mfrs. (most had different safety valves than those on
the model, however), and some private owners got them as well.

Dave, if you'll e-mail me the details of your modeling location and era, I
can probably send you scans of several likely prototypes. But finding
lettering for some of them may be a challenge! I've got at least one of
the models, too, so maybe we can either brainstorm decal sources or get
some decals made which will do the job.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Email address change

ted@...
 

To communicate with me, please start using the following email
address in place of any old ones you may have for me.

ted_culotta@yahoo.com

Sorry for the wasted bandwidth.

Regards,
Ted Culotta


Re: UTLX tank cars

Richard Hendrickson
 

1 Tichey has had his tank car on the market for 15-20 years and never
did sell very many of them because of an unfortunate choice of
unprototypical accuracy. He also does his own tooling on the cheap and
I'll bet you he still hasn't recouped his out-of-pocket on that kit. He
sells the underframes relatively cheap to get something out of it, but
since he doesn't have much in to begin with, they're cheap. Probably
cheaper than the Chinese would charge.
Byron is essentially right about this (aas about the other practical issues
involved in producing and marketing tank car parts), but, just for the
record, let's correct his oversimplification of history here. The
now-Tichy tank car was originally tooled by Bill Gould, whose knowledge of
prototype history was as defective as his die-making skills were superb.
(And, just to make sure blame goes where it should, even at this late date,
Gould was egged on by Bob Hundman who then, when the nonexistence of the
prototype was pointed out, tried to rewrite history rather than admit he
was wrong). Gould made some other unfortunate choices of prototypes to
model, sales of his kits fell far short of his expectations, and he
eventually sold all the tooling for the Gould kits to Tichy, who has
produced them ever since. No way to know what Tichy paid for Gould's
tooling, but it's a pretty safe bet that he paid a lot less than it cost to
produce, and probably a whole lot less than it would take to duplicate it
today.

Those of us who are into building kits (especially resin kits), kitbashing,
etc. are prone to forget how few of us there are, and what a miniscule
market we constitute for manufacturers. I have it on good authority that
the Life-Like and Intermountain built-ups go out the front door as fast as
they come in the back door while the kits languish on dealers' shelves. As
for kits like the Gould/Tichy cars, with all those little pieces that have
to be assembled and then - saints preserve us! - painted and lettered, I
happened to be in a large hobby shop in Southern Calif. when the Gould tank
car first came out. A modeler whose name is still regarded with great
reverence by the NMRA crowd came into the store to see what was new and the
owner handed him a Gould tank car kit. He opened the box, looked at all
those itty bitty styrene parts, blanched visibly, and blurted out, "Oh, I
could never build anything like that!" That was a long time ago, but, if
anything, there are more "model railroaders" like him today than there ever
were.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: Overland tank car

Tim O'Connor <timoconnor@...>
 

Dave,

Figuring out prototypes for Overland tank cars isn't easy! But
I think this -type- of car could be used for asphalt, or perhaps
caustic soda (lye), or coal tar, or gasoline. I bought several of
those ACF cars when they were available at 80 bucks or less. Quite
a bargain compared to the newest stuff!

At 09:34 PM 3/12/01 -0800, you wrote:

I recently purchased an Overland brass model of an "ACF single dome,
insulated, low pressure, 8000 gal, tankcar (product # OM-3133). It has a
standard dome, dome walkway with handrails (think athearn), and what appears
to be a tank-long, narrow, L bar welded on each side of the tank -- about
2/3rds of the way down.

In checking the ACF book I see there are similar cars made in the early 50's
(for DOW). I'm hoping I can paint and decal the car for something pre 1950.
Does anybody know what Overland was trying to do replicate? Or what kind of
commodities would be carried in such a car?
Timothy O'Connor <timoconnor@mediaone.net>
Marlborough, Massachusetts


Re: UTLX tank cars

byronrose@...
 

On Mon, 12 Mar 2001 17:05:49 -0500 Larry King <ab8180@wayne.edu> writes:
At 04:59 PM 3/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Larry,

Your idea is great. You could probably guarantee a manufacturer
that
each of the 200 or so people on this list would buy ten
underframes. But
how could they cover the other 48,000 or so they need to sell to
make any
money on it.
Maybe, but I see that Tichy sells his tank car underframe for
$4.50 and I
bet even for twice that you'd have a market. Look at all the diesel
detail
parts that are available. Are there REALLY that many people who are
serious
diesel detailers?
Larry,

You missed my point, but I'll try to make them again.

1 Tichey has had his tank car on the market for 15-20 years and never
did sell very many of them because of an unfortunate choice of
unprototypical accuracy. He also does his own tooling on the cheap and
I'll bet you he still hasn't recouped his out-of-pocket on that kit. He
sells the underframes relatively cheap to get something out of it, but
since he doesn't have much in to begin with, they're cheap. Probably
cheaper than the Chinese would charge.

2 LifeLike and InterMountain have pretty much sated the market for a
good looking, buildable (or built up) tank car for those hundreds of
thousands of modelers who just want a tank car that doesn't look like the
Walthers/TMI/Mantua pieces of dreck that had overrun the market
previously.

3 DA and DW don't do their own tooling. They are at the mercy of people
who charge them great sums of money for products that they (DA/DW) are
familiar with and feel they can make a buck off of. Why should they get
into making tank car parts with absolutely no knowledge to base their
decisions on?

4 Would you want unknowledgable manufacturers making those parts and/or
decisions? Have you seen the early version of the IM PFE R40-10? Have
you tried to guess why they brought out a super version of it for 7 bucks
more? For us to pay for their lack of smarts the first time they tried
to do it.

4 If someone wanted to lose money making HO models, they'd be better
served making something that builds out of the box, uses a maximum of 3
materials to produce, comes painted, and needs no other parts purchased
to finish it. Like a Beano wagon top box car.

BSR
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


Overland tank car

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

I recently purchased an Overland brass model of an "ACF single dome,
insulated, low pressure, 8000 gal, tankcar (product # OM-3133). It has a
standard dome, dome walkway with handrails (think athearn), and what appears
to be a tank-long, narrow, L bar welded on each side of the tank -- about
2/3rds of the way down.

In checking the ACF book I see there are similar cars made in the early 50's
(for DOW). I'm hoping I can paint and decal the car for something pre 1950.
Does anybody know what Overland was trying to do replicate? Or what kind of
commodities would be carried in such a car?

Thanks in advance.
-----------------------------------
Dave Nelson


Re: New Member

Richard Hendrickson
 

I have two unfinished projects on my plate. #1 is an M&StL 72000
series double deck stock car (hogs for Deckers). I'm using a photo of a
73000 single deck car and in-consist dd shots as guides. If anyone has a
photo of a 72000 I'd like a copy, Please.
Clark, I have only one photo of a M&StL 72000 series stock car, and it's a
(not very sharp) low-angle in-consist shot of 72017 (the car next to it is
a Maty box car). You may already have this photo, but if not I can scan it
and send you a JPEG.

#2 is a URTX 4800 series
reefer that were leased by the M&StL (dressed poultry from EG Morse). It
was suggested to me to use a TYCO wood side reefer for this car. I chose
to only use the TYCO sides, I used Details West 4/4 dreadnought steel
ends, a modified C&BT underframe, but the photos I have unfortunately do
not show the roof very well. I can't believe the M&StL was the only road
to lease this style of reefer. Can someone clue me in on what to use for
the roof?
I have several photos of these late URTX rebuilds, including one of URTX
4815 with M&StLK stenciling (apparently these cars were rebuilt in the late
1950s/early 1960s, as 1960 is the earliest reweigh date I can find). They
were leased to the Soo Line as well as ther M&StL and also operated in
short-term leasing service with no stenciling for a specific railroad or
shipper. It appears from the photos I have that they had diagonal-panel
steel roofs and pressed steel Equipco hatch covers. InterMountain makes
both diagonal-panel roofs and Equipco hatch covers for their PFE R-40-25
kits, though I don't know whether they would work dimensionally with the
Tyco body.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?

Richard Hendrickson
 

I will do my best to attend next year, and will also do my best to steer
the conversation towards BNSF-bashing (though I'd much rather bash the
last days of the Unfriendly Espee).
Topic is up to you, Jeff, but all bashing must be done in person. No more
of this sniping from a distance via e-mail.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


Re: Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?

Benjamin Hom <bhom3@...>
 

Jeff Aley wrote:

"Certainly UP supports STEAM-ERA history better than any other existing
Class 1 [partially on-topic]."

So long as it's UP's OWN steam-era history! You don't see a whole lot of
history about C&NW, M-K-T, MP, WP, or SP, except the odd reference to them
in the names of UP's vintage passenger car fleet. Kind of like German and
Japanese history books skipping over WWII, ya know.


Ben Hom


Re: Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?

Jeff Aley - GCD PE <jaley@...>
 

On Mar 12, 6:09pm, Richard Hendrickson wrote:
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?
I will tell you that quite a bit of time was spent trashing the
Union Pacific, though it was the current UP, Not the real (historical)
UP.

Oh, well. At least there's still a UP to bash, unlike the SP, ATSF, and
others. For that matter, in my myopic view, there's not much to bash in
comparison with UP's peers. Certainly UP supports STEAM-ERA history
better than any other existing Class 1 [partially on-topic]. And it seems
to me that UP's current FREIGHT CAR fleet [the other half of being
on-topic] is as good as any other Class 1's fleet (i.e. full of
uninteresting modern cars).

I will do my best to attend next year, and will also do my best to steer
the conversation towards BNSF-bashing (though I'd much rather bash the
last days of the Unfriendly Espee).

Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley, Development Engineer jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
Graphics Components Division
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Re: Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?

Richard Hendrickson
 

All,

For a variety of reasons, I was unable to attend either of
Sunshine Models' seminars here in California. There was one in Southern
California on the 4th, and one in Northern California on the 11th.

Can some of the attendees comment on the presentations and the
event in general?
Dave Nelson spoiled my fun. I was going to say that, no, we weren't going
to tell you anything that happened at Pleasanton, not even the rude things
people said about the fact that you weren't there, and in future if you
want to know what's going on, get your priorities straight and come to the
meetings. I will tell you that quite a bit of time was spent trashing the
Union Pacific, though it was the current UP, Not the real (historical) UP.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520


New Member

Clark Propst <cepropst@...>
 

Hi,
My name is Clark Propst I model the M&StL in Mason City Iowa. I found
this group through an e-mail from Richard Hendrickson. You could say I
followed him home.
I was surprised to see several messages about the Decker reefers.
After I read them I thought I had joined a travel group instead of a
bunch of freight car fans. I guess I shouldn't knock good press. I'd be
happy to talk about River City (Mason City in the Music Man), but I'd
like some help.
I have two unfinished projects on my plate. #1 is an M&StL 72000
series double deck stock car (hogs for Deckers). I'm using a photo of a
73000 single deck car and in-consist dd shots as guides. If anyone has a
photo of a 72000 I'd like a copy, Please. #2 is a URTX 4800 series
reefer that were leased by the M&StL (dressed poultry from EG Morse). It
was suggested to me to use a TYCO wood side reefer for this car. I chose
to only use the TYCO sides, I used Details West 4/4 dreadnought steel
ends, a modified C&BT underframe, but the photos I have unfortunately do
not show the roof very well. I can't believe the M&StL was the only road
to lease this style of reefer. Can someone clue me in on what to use for
the roof?
Thanks, Glad to be aboard,
Clark


Re: Northern Pacific Monad size question

David Lenehan <david_lenehan@...>
 

Bill Welch wrote:

A Will Whittaker photo of NP double sheathed boxcar 12855 photographed in March 1954, with a reweigh date of 10-52, shows the car with the larger Monad or yin/yang symbol and "Main Street of the Northwest" stenciled below it.
My question relates to the application of the monad to the NP's doubled sheathed reefers. Would these reefers, or at least some of them, also had the larger monad by the early fifties. Would they also have received the "Main Street of the Northwest" slogan?
Hi Bill,

What you described above with the 8' Monad and the "Main Street of the Northwest" is actually the boxcar paint scheme introduced by the NP in 1959. Prior to that time, the 4' Monad was used starting in 1953 and the 3' Monad before that time. "The "Main Street of
the Northwest" was first added to boxcars in 1948.

The NP's wood reefers never (you can bet there was at least on exception now that I've said never) carried the "Main Street" logo. Ice reefers were yellow-orange with mineral brown roof and ends. The curved "NORTHERN PACIFIC" lettering, the three foot Monad and,
if they carried a written logo at all it was the "Yellowstone Park Line" logo under the Monad. From 1940, the Monad was simplified to read "Northern Pacific" when the word "railway was dropped off. The red, black and white Monad invariably faded badly until it
was black only. No written logo was used after this time on wooden reefers.

Hope this helps.

David Lenehan


Re: UTLX tank cars

Larry King <ab8180@...>
 

At 04:59 PM 3/11/2001 -0500, you wrote:
Dear Larry,

Your idea is great. You could probably guarantee a manufacturer that
each of the 200 or so people on this list would buy ten underframes. But
how could they cover the other 48,000 or so they need to sell to make any
money on it.
Maybe, but I see that Tichy sells his tank car underframe for $4.50 and I
bet even for twice that you'd have a market. Look at all the diesel detail
parts that are available. Are there REALLY that many people who are serious
diesel detailers?
I hate to say it, but this is a subject best left to resin castings.
That's the only venue available to us for the real life quantities that
this type of model represents. Sorry.
The trouble with this, is that the resin cars are going for about $30.00
apiece, and that mounts up too...
Did'ja notice that LifeLike sold out all the built up tank car models
they brought in, while Martin Loftin is still begging people to buy his
kit? I guess that's not a fair comparison to make. How about this. I
built one P2K kit and than went and bought a dozen built ups. How many
others did the same?
I guess I just don't care to have 10cts./hour Chinese labor doing my
modeling for me.
And contrary to your casual remark about using existing tank castings,
'tain't so. It seems every tank car manufacturer used different
combinations of diameter and length to get to those 6, 8, and 10,000
gallon sizes. Using info from 50 years worth of Cycs, I've found only a
handful that could be adapted from the 4 existing riveted tanks, and then
only by diameter, their lengths would have to be changed. That doesn't
even begin to cover the 4, 6, and 12,000 gallon sizes.
I disagree. The IM tanks are close enough that Sunshine is using them as
the basis of their kit, and I never said this would work for EVERY UTLX
car.So you have to kitbash a little...
I've also thought about making a pattern for some of those sizes to be
cast in resin. Making a proper coned rivet is the easy part, punching
them into brass only slightly less easy, rolling said shell and keeping a
curve behind each rivet completely escapes me. You see, each little
round pyramid reinforces the metal around it's base so that when the
shell is rolled, it will appear as though it a series of flat surfaces
joined by bent planes, rather than curved. Remember, those rivets on the
prototype were hammered in after the shell was curved. So far, we don't
have that luxury. The cast tanks available had the rivets cut into the
molds after the roll of the tank was cut.

OTOH, there's the possibility of using the same old NWSL rivets punched
into styrene sheet as usual, but then we'd have a tank that looked just
like all those imported brass models with those cute little dimples,
rather than the big, hefty RIVETS they need. How could we tell them
apart?

I'm still trying to get my act into order to make available copies of my
patterns for the corrected ACF tank car underframe which sits 65%
completed in a box on my work(?)bench. A URTX underframe was supposed to
be next. I hope that when Martin Loftin does his it's more accurate than
his ACF underframe.

Byron Rose


On Fri, 09 Mar 2001 09:07:48 -0500 Larry King <ab8180@wayne.edu> writes:
3-5-01

This is a revision of a note I sent to John Nerich's NYB&W
website. The
discussion by Richard Hendrikson about the need for UTLX tank cars
prompts
me to repeat it:
Why couldn't one of the detail parts makers (ie, Detail
Associates,
Tichy,New England Rail Service,etc)make a separate UTLX X-3 style
underframe in styrene that could be fitted to the several available
tanks
from Tichy, Intermountain(especially Intermountain),and Red
Caboose,perhaps
with a center sill that would be cut to length to suit the
particular
tank.This could result in accurate UTLX models without the
investment in
die work needed for the whole car, especially the tank. AB or K
brake
options could be provided too.The data needed is available in the
Car
Builder's Cyc and on museum cars.
I would think the "prototype conscious" crowd would provide a
customer
base for such a part, even if not for complete UTLX kits. Remember
that
UTLX was like PFE- the cars all looked much alike but were around in
huge
numbers and went everywhere. Everybody needs a few!

LR King


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



Re: Prototype Modelers Seminar Report?

Dave & Libby Nelson <muskoka@...>
 

For a variety of reasons, I was unable to attend either of
Sunshine Models' seminars here in California. There was one in Southern
California on the 4th, and one in Northern California on the 11th.

Can some of the attendees comment on the presentations and the
event in general?

Sunshine Models was our host (i.e., it was not a meeting of the the cult of
the personality).

Richard gave a nice overview of the design history of covered hoppers as
exampled by the ATSF fleet.
Gary showed us 60 years of house cars from the Standard railroad of
Harrisburg PA. The charts of the fleet population were particularly
helpful.
no-host lunch.
Martin explained why you bring mosquito repellant when railfanning the SSW.
Ted compared real gons to model gons (I quite enjoyed this one).
Tom showed us Pullman sumps and ducts. Once you know what these things are
you start seeing a lot more in the photos.
Tony demonstrated how much slide projectors don't like his SP slides, even
if his audience does.

Much conversation between presentations. It appeared a good time was had by
all. And if my bag was any indication, Martin made out fairly well.

Dave Nelson


Re: More Tank Cars in the Frt Conductors Book

Bill Kelly
 

If the number is right, TNO 51215, then this is a box car. A B-40-6 to
be exact. There were 178 of these in '49. This must have been oil in
cans. T&NO tank cars were numbered in the 17000s and 18000s after 1930.
If it's really an SP number then Guy covered it with the CS-25As.

Bill Kelly

Guy wrote:
snip<
10. Southern Pacific TNO 51215 WB Oil 5 3-19-49 This car's No.
does not match '53 ORER >>

If this is the correct number for the SP it would have been a fairly
ancient
(for the time) 1903 built CS-25A tank of which only a "handful" were
still in
service in 1949. There were also transfers of 0-50-5 tanks from T&NO to
SP
(pre WWll), but this number does not fit into that number range
(51080-51132). Ed Workman, Bill Kelly or Tony T. may know more.
________________________________________________________________
GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.


Re: Northern Pacific Monad size question

John Nehrich <nehrij@...>
 

Bill - I have a list of the NP scheme changes at:
http://www.union.rpi.edu/railroad/images/rolling-stock/Paint/Paint-N.html
as best I can find the information (mostly from Todd Sullivan's NP Color
Guide) and I would assume the reefer schemes followed the same chronology.
(And if not, I'd be glad to note that in that section.) - John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Welch" <bwelch@uucf.org>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Northern Pacific Monad size question


A Will Whittaker photo of NP double sheathed boxcar 12855 photographed in
March 1954, with a reweigh date of 10-52, shows the car with the larger
Monad or yin/yang symbol and "Main Street of the Northwest" stenciled below
it.

My question relates to the application of the monad to the NP's doubled
sheathed reefers. Would these reefers, or at least some of them, also had
the larger monad by the early fifties. Would they also have received the
"Main Street of the Northwest" slogan?

I am getting ready to start painting two "Norwest" reefer models and I am
wanting to think about how to decal them using the Microscale set, which
includes both sizes but provides no historical information regarding dates
of application of the various schemes.


Bill 'Welch <bwelch@uucf.org>
Associate Minister, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Fairfax
P.O. Box 130 Oakton VA 22124 www.uucf.org
Telephone 703 281-4230 Fax 703 281-5399


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@egroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

186281 - 186300 of 187156