Date   

Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

rockroll50401 <cepropst@...>
 

"Medallion" Is the term used by EMD on the painting and styling diagrams for M&StL and CGW Fs.
Clark Propst


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Craig Zeni
 

On Feb 14, 2010, at 8:20 AM, STMFC@yahoogroups.com wrote:
3b. Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity
Posted by: "Jim Betz" jimbetz@jimbetz.com oldrockygn
Date: Sat Feb 13, 2010 10:30 am ((PST))

Denny, et al,

While I agree that the standard length of the shanks on
the Kadee product line (and all other mfgrs as well - with the
possible exception of the Sergents) is longer than it should be -
it does mean that we can operate our model trains on track with
significantly more curvature than the prototype. The same can
be said of the width of the coupler box - and that measurement
is directly related to the same thing.

I have never seen a layout that has truly prototypical
curvature standards. And even those that have truly generous
standards (such as "nothing smaller than 36" on the mainline")
still have several areas on the layout that have smaller
curves and lower numbered turnouts. If I remember correctly
a #10 turnout -approaches- the typical smallest radius of the
prototype (and I'm not talking about mainline). Yes, of course,
these are generalizations/standard practices and you can go
out and find examples where the real RRs had more curvature
than these statements. But they are pretty close to what
the real RRs use as their standards (which they may or may
not break depending upon the situation).
On our layouts we 'fudge' even our own standards - not once
in a while but often/always. The phrase "I can make it fit if
I use a #4 turnout here for this industry track" is one I hear
a lot. The other thing you hear are statements such as "we
have 30-inch radius every where on our mainline - except for
the areas at _____ and _____" ... and those statements are made
proudly/as a brag about how generous that particular layout is.
And there is a real reason why the time-saver is based upon
all #4 turnouts.
If I remember correctly I think that an HO layout would
have to adopt s curvature standard of something approaching
that used on O-scale in order to be in the same ball park as
the real RRs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3IO0XYI8mew - my modular group. The curve the train passes on is 86" radius... 7'2"...and comparing it to main railroads it looks pretty tight. It's pretty sharp for us nowadays. Nothing tighter on the mainline except for the turnouts used to access the yards...which we detest but yards take up enough room without #18 turnouts leading in and out of them.

We use a mix of #5 and #58/158 couplers on our modular layout. If they match up to the Kadee gauge we have very little issue with random uncouplings in 80+ car trains running for 8 hours a day as moving scenery. Cars that uncouple or derail more than twice get lifted and inspected...usually finding a droopy coupler being the cause.



Craig Zeni
Join the Penn Central Railroad HS at www.PCRRHS.org


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Charles Hladik
 

I think that the "Green Mountain Gateway" herald was called a herald on
the Rutland.
Chuck Hladik

In a message dated 2/14/2010 11:52:43 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cepropst@netconx.net writes:




"Medallion" Is the term used by EMD on the painting and styling diagrams
for M&StL and CGW Fs.
Clark Propst





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Heralds

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Feb 13, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Schuyler Larrabee wrote:

As far as I know, the ERIE used "Herald" as the nomenclature for the
diamond.

SGL

FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley
In official documents the Santa Fe called its cross-in-circle-in-
square emblem either a "monogram" or a "badge." There does not seem
to have been any term that was universal, or nearly so, in the
railroad industry. Modern day historians and modelers have generally
called them "heralds," but the use of that term goes back far enough
in history that it obviously was not a modeler's invention.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Schuyler Larrabee
 

As far as I know, the ERIE used "Herald" as the nomenclature for the
diamond.

SGL


FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley







E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14350
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Dennis Storzek
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:

Denny,

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.

Tim O'Connor
That's not a foregone conclusion, Tim. Back when I did the first kits for Accurail, I looked at this; my thought was to position the coupler pivot point so the cars had the correct coupled distance. What I found was that the coupler box would have to end back under the car, which was not going to please the customers. So, I just put the end of the box at the correct location of the striker plate, and figured some day our model couplers would finally catch up. From what I've seen, most manufacturers have done the same, modeling the car, but not paying much attention as to what the modeler is going to put in the coupler box.

Dennis


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Jim Betz
 

Denny, et al,

While I agree that the standard length of the shanks on
the Kadee product line (and all other mfgrs as well - with the
possible exception of the Sergents) is longer than it should be -
it does mean that we can operate our model trains on track with
significantly more curvature than the prototype. The same can
be said of the width of the coupler box - and that measurement
is directly related to the same thing.

I have never seen a layout that has truly prototypical
curvature standards. And even those that have truly generous
standards (such as "nothing smaller than 36" on the mainline")
still have several areas on the layout that have smaller
curves and lower numbered turnouts. If I remember correctly
a #10 turnout -approaches- the typical smallest radius of the
prototype (and I'm not talking about mainline). Yes, of course,
these are generalizations/standard practices and you can go
out and find examples where the real RRs had more curvature
than these statements. But they are pretty close to what
the real RRs use as their standards (which they may or may
not break depending upon the situation).
On our layouts we 'fudge' even our own standards - not once
in a while but often/always. The phrase "I can make it fit if
I use a #4 turnout here for this industry track" is one I hear
a lot. The other thing you hear are statements such as "we
have 30-inch radius every where on our mainline - except for
the areas at _____ and _____" ... and those statements are made
proudly/as a brag about how generous that particular layout is.
And there is a real reason why the time-saver is based upon
all #4 turnouts.
If I remember correctly I think that an HO layout would
have to adopt s curvature standard of something approaching
that used on O-scale in order to be in the same ball park as
the real RRs.
I can't remember ever seeing a commercially available
turnout number larger than a #10. Even Fast Tracks only
goes up to a #12 (and I'll predict that they don't sell very
many of them!) - in HO and N ... and they only go up to a #6
in O-scale.

If you can get Kadee (or any other coupler mfgr) to answer
you I'm certain that you will find that the size of the coupler
box and the length of the shank has been chosen in order to
provide for operation of normal length equipment on tight
radius curves (where tight is defined as 22" or larger - at
least). The other thing that you will be told is that they
are using the sizes/measurements they are using due to the
NMRA standards/RPs.

Until we start to have layouts that do not compromise on
the curvature and turnout numbers in use I'm afraid we are
going to have to compromise on the coupler boxes and shanks.
I don't see any way around it.
I'll even go further and state that due to the sheer
number of layouts and existing model trains that are
already out there already you are going to be hard pressed
to figure out how to influence/change this reality. We may
be 'committed' to this state "for ever". *Sigh*
On the other side - I'm not sure any of us would ever
attempt to build a layout based upon true prototype
curvature standards ... we just don't have the space.

One last thing - all of the above relates directly to
the operational characteristics of our 'typical' trains and
is equally applicable to all scales and eras. If your layout
is early enough in the STMFC era that you have only 40'
or shorter freight cars then you might be able to use
smaller boxes and shorter shafts. Even a train of all
50' cars, going around a 40" radius curve - will look 'funny'
when compared to the real RRs. By 'funny' I mean that the
cars will be hanging out over the rail in the middle of the
car further than you will see them do on a real RR.
- Jim

P.S. It certainly -seems- to be true that having a coupler
box available that has a 'built-in shim' across the
opening to prevent coupler droop would be a good idea.
But I highly doubt we'll ever see it from Kadee - if
for no other reason than that it would prevent that
box from being used for a #5 with the existing copper
centering spring.
A good argument can be made for the idea that a
coupler "needs" to be able to 'droop' during certain
loading situations. I have certainly seen couplers
between two cars that were "pulled down" from the
normal orientation when going thru a vertical curve.
Less possible movement in that direction under these
conditions would translate into more frequent break-in-
twos (but eliminate others).
And I'm sure that Kadee will tell you that if your
couplers are drooping that you need to look at how
they are installed and fix the problem that way. And
their argument is technically correct. However, it is
also true that installing a shim may be a much quicker
and easier way to fix the problem on a particular
installation.
One thing that I've seen done (and done myself) is
to reverse the copper spring in the box - to put the
'face' of it below instead of above the coupler. This
is one "quick and dirty" way to correct droop.


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

On Feb 13, 2010 Tim O'Connor wrote:

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.
What is the scale relationship, i.e. distance, between the striker plates of coupled car, and/or what is the correct scale relationship, i.e. projected distance, between the face of the coupler box striker plate and the end sill on an individual car?

My opinion presumes that the coupler box striker plates are, or are placed in at least a close semblance of the correct prototype position, which IMHO they mostly are in the great majority of the fine models that the members of this list seems to embrace.

The Accumate Proto couplers are dead on, striker plate to striker plate, and the Kadee #153s are just two inches over- not enough to notice. This means that if the striker plates of the coupled cars have the correct relationship to their respective cars, then the use of these couplers will result in the coupled distance between the cars being at least very-close-to-prototype as well.

By the way, trains of fine prototype cars individually coupled at prototype distances apart can look stunning! ("Quality is the close attention to detail.).

DEnny


Denny S. Anspach, MD
Sacramento


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Gene <bierglaeser@...>
 

M&StL only used "mongram" in documents I have found so far.
Gene Green

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "fltenwheeler" <floridatenwheeler@...> wrote:

The Chicago North Western called it a Trade Mark later on they called it a Monogram.

The Chicago Great Western called it a Trade Mark

Tim


Railroad Heritage Park

Wendye Ware
 

Hi Everyone

Over the next two or three weeks, a wedge snow plow, steam engine, bunk car, and caboose will be moved from various locations in Laramie, Wyoming, to a new Railroad Heritage Park adjacent to the historic Union Pacific depot. Once assembled, the equipment will re-create a 1950s era snow train used to keep the rail lines open in the fierce Wyoming winters. It will be a tribute to the hard working men and women of Laramie and the West who braved the elements to keep the passenger and freight trains running. The train will not only serve an historical function, but it will also be "coherent", meaning that it could have existed in the real world, operating in exactly this assemblage. This is rare for static displays.

It is seldom that one sees any piece of railroad equipment riding on a truck through city streets. This is an opportunity to see an entire train move, albeit spread over several days.

The first move is scheduled for 11 AM, Tuesday, February 16, but this could be delayed if there are weather or moving company equipment problems.

The train consists of the following equipment:

Wedge snow plow – Union Pacific snow plow 900015, now located in Laramie's West Side. It was built in the UP Pocatello shops in 1953 and was converted from a steam engine tender. The original number was 015. It was featured on the cover of The Streamliner, Vol. 6, No. 3, in action blasting through a snow drift near Strasburg, Colorado in 1982.

Steam engine – Union Pacific 535, now in LaBonte Park in Laramie. It was built by Baldwin in 1903. It is a 2-8-0 Consolidation and was originally part of the Oregon Short Line. It worked the Laramie yards and the U.P. Coalmont branch in the 1950s.

Bunk car – built by Ralston Steel Car Company for the U.P. in 1929. It began life as an A-50-12 automobile car, part of series 152001-152500, was converted to a box car in 1940, and then into a six-man bunk car in the late 1940s. An article about the U.P.'s bunk cars, which includes a photo of a car similar to ours, appeared in The Streamliner, Vol. 16, No. 3. (I hope the fact that this is part of the train will keep me out of Mike's Moderator Jail!!!)

Caboose – Union Pacific 25232, built in 1951 with original number 3932. It is a class CA-5 caboose, one of a set of 100 such cars built by the U.P. in its Omaha shops. This was the first class of steel cabooses built in the U.P. shops. In the 1970s the caboose was upgraded with trucks that gave it a smoother ride. It served on the Maryville, KS, branch until it was retired.


The bunk car actually led to the creation of RR Heritage Park. A year ago the car was scheduled to succumb to a salvage company's cutting torch. The effort to save it let to a whirlwind of activity which culminated in the Park.

Railroad Heritage Park is a joint project between the Laramie Railroad Depot Association and the City of Laramie. For more details on this park, the equipment, and up to date information on the schedule for the moves see the Association's website at www.laramiedepot.org (Click on "News" for info about the move; and on "About – Railroad Heritage Park" for info about the park and equipment.)

Best wishes,
Larry Ostresh
Laramie, Wyoming


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Tim Meyer
 

The Chicago North Western called it a Trade Mark later on they called it a Monogram.

The Chicago Great Western called it a Trade Mark

Tim


FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Dick Harley writes:

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Which, of course, is a very admirable goal. I'll let Steve speak for himself but, having spent a few hours myself observing UP...and other railroad's rules, regulations, standards, directions, specifications, etc. [ big word..etc. ], I have noticed that at times the railroad did something a bit different from a standard. This is particularly true with regard to painting. OTOH, all too often all we have to go on is a standard. IOW, with regard to painting, we don't really know if directions might have been sent to a paint shop to do something different from the known standard specification. Hence, the silver colored trim on a Big Boy's running board and wheel rims. Was this done for some PR activity? Did the paint shop do it on their own or were they directed to? The point being that I'm always prepared to not be surprised to see something unexpected....nor do I assume that UP workers followed the exact standard or specification governing some aspect. Photos are good things.

With other railroads...Southern is one example...certain elements of steam locomotives were done in ways unique to a particular shop. With UP, while standardization seems to have been a goal all the way back to Harriman days, photos of 2-10-2's seem to show that each had its own pipe arrangement. It is not clear to me if this was shop dependent.

Mike Brock


Re: Standard weight

Bill Vaughn
 

All loads were weighed till after our cutoff.
 
Bill Vaughn

--- On Wed, 2/10/10, Clark Propst <cepropst@netconx.net> wrote:


From: Clark Propst <cepropst@netconx.net>
Subject: [STMFC] Standard weight
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 10, 2010, 6:37 AM


 



There was a thread some years ago about "standard weight" carloads (for lack
of the correct term),. Like grain loads?

For modeling purposes. I weigh all loads that come out of my packinghouse.
In reality would by-products be weighed. Or would an agreement be made
between the customer and railroad for a standard weight? For say, hides or
tankage???

Thanks for any help : ))
Clark Propst
Mason City Iowa











[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

Dick Harley
 

Steve Lucas writes:
>>"I have to question the accuracy of information with respect to
the Union Pacific herald on the UP website when they fail to mention
their own ... slogan ..."
He continues with:
"... the fact that UP does not mention this very recent slogan makes
one question the veracity of other historical info on their site."
<<

Well Steve, I don't recall that UP medallion history website
mentioning ANY of the multitude of slogans that UP has used over the
past 140+ years, unless they were actually in the logo. So I don't
see how the absence of a particular slogan affects the veracity of
the information presented. The site is titled "History of the Union
Pacific Logo", and that is what it is. So far, I have found no
historical errors in it. If you see any, please let us all know where.

I believe I also provided two additional pieces of corroborating data
for the medallion history in 1941-42. Are you questioning the
accuracy of all of that? If so, please share your data to the contrary.

FWIW, UP used the word "medallion" on their engineering drawings.
The company also used the words "shield" and "logo", but never have I
seen any UP document refer to a "herald". Did any railroad use the
word "herald", or is it another modeler invention?

Aiming for historical accuracy,
Dick Harley


Re: Photos of interest

Schuyler Larrabee
 

I see that I mistyped Bob's email address, putting a 'dot' before the @. If
you remove that dot it will work.

SGL



From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Schuyler Larrabee
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:00 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest





Bob also brings EVERYTHING to the Cocoa Beach meet, and I believe to
Naperville too. He has an email address which I believe is
bobsphoto.train.@yahoo.com <mailto:bobsphoto.train.%40yahoo.com> . If you
email, he will bring the appropriate volumes of photos to the show you are
going to attend. I am fairly sure that the telephone number I have for him
is no longer the correct one.

SGL

Bob's Photo is out of Wallingford, KY. He has a fantastic collection of
freight car photos . . . most from the 40 and 50s. Remember, $7 for B&Ws and
$10 for color photos is not out of the normal range these days. You might
want to call him ahead of time if you are looking for specific railroads and
you are not in their territory. He usually brings a van's worth to shows. He
and Jay Williams (Indiana) always seem to have something new it seems. In
the mid-west Rich Burg is back in it again and Bob Lorenz sometimes shows
up.

Who else has freight car photos that might include those of the Kentucky and
West Virginia coal hauling railroads in the 1930-50s?

Al Kresse

----- Original Message -----
From: "fltenwheeler" <floridatenwheeler@verizon.net
<mailto:floridatenwheeler%40verizon.net>
<mailto:floridatenwheeler%40verizon.net> >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com <mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
<mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2010 6:44:39 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Photos of interest

OK I need to ask. I have seen the reference to Bob's photos. What or who?
What is available?

Thanks

Tim


$5 for a color 8x10 print is a lot cheaper than Bob's!

Good thing Bob's collection is not online, or a lot of
us would go broke!

Tim O'Connor


E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14330
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>

E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14330
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/









E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14330
http://www.pctools.com/spyware-doctor-antivirus/
<http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/>





E-mail message checked by Spyware Doctor (7.0.0.514)
Database version: 6.14350
http://www.pctools.com/en/spyware-doctor-antivirus/


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Tim O'Connor
 

Denny Anspach wrote

That except for the short shank #153 semi scale couplers, the other
Kadee semi scale couplers (58, 78) are on prototypically excessively-
long shanks... Personally, I see no visual advantage at all to using
semi scale couplers of any variety unless the shanks are short...
Denny,

Consider that most (uncushioned) model draft gear do not extend further
than the end sills, and then the extra shank length (.031) plus the smaller
coupler head means that the car-to-car distance is closer to prototype
than you might expect if you're only considering the shank length. So if
you insist on using only the "short" shank #153 then you must also mount
your draft gear so the distance over pulling faces of the couplers is
set according to the prototype.

Tim O'Connor


Re: Kadee Scale Coupler Operational Reliablity

Denny Anspach <danspach@...>
 

The operational coupling reliability level attained with the smaller couplers is determined by how accurately the couplers can be, and are centered/aligned at the moment when the couplers meet. The smaller gathering range of the smaller couplers reduces the room for error in this regard, requiring the operator choosing these couplers to pay even more attention to the biggest endemic culprit in the allowing of any given car to be off center: excessive axle/wheel-set end play. The usual excessive coupler shank length offers even more opportunity for poor centering.

Coupler droop is a big problem with any coupler using the standard "Athearn" or Kadee boxes, and IMHO is one of the biggest root problems with uncouplings/derailments, i.e. couplers pulled into distortion, allowing their draft angles to work into an over-ride; or more catastrophically, a coupler magnetic glad hand pulled down to snag the next closure rail. The droop in the proprietary #78 box is also excessive.

That except for the short shank #153 semi scale couplers, the other Kadee semi scale couplers (58, 78) are on prototypically excessively- long shanks. The weight of the heads sticking on the ends of these long lever arms do nothing but exacerbate the drooping problem. IMHO, from a prototypical point of view, seeing a coupler head sticking out like akin to a head on the end of a pole destroys any advantage that a small coupler head might otherwise provide. In this regard, if short shanks are not a choice, you are better off sticking to regular sized couplers, where the large heads pretty much hides the fact that the shank is too long, and that it is in fact sticking out of a grossly oversized coupler box.

Personally, I see no visual advantage at all to using semi scale couplers of any variety unless the shanks are short.

Denny


Denny S. Anspach MD
Sacramento


Re: PFE R-40-14 UP Herald

railwayman <stevelucas3@...>
 

I have to question the accuracy of information with respect to the Union Pacific herald on the UP website when they fail to mention their own "We Will Deliver..." slogan that was applied to many of their cars in recent years.

While this slogan became a joke about UP service with the melt-down that followed UP's takeover of the SP, the fact that UP does not mention this very recent slogan makes one question the veracity of other historical info on their site. I submit this as a caution to relying on corporate sites for historical info, as often a corporation will revise its own published history to cast it in a favourable light.

Steve Lucas.

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Dick Harley <dick.harley4up@...> wrote:

On Tue Feb 9, 2010 John Hile asked:

>>Am I correct in assuming the non-aluminum PFE R-40-14 reefers wore
the UP Overland herald when new?
<<

To which Richard Hendrickson replied, stating that he had a 12/45
photo of an R-40-14 without the "Overland" banner on the UP medallion.

While I do not have a photo (in fact, I have darn few R-40-14 photos
compared to R-40-10s and R-40-20s), I do have some evidence that I
think is rather compelling, which leads me to believe that the
R-40-14s did have the "Overland" banner on the UP medallion when they
were new.

First of all, the UP medallion was, of course, controlled by the
Union Pacific. Their corporate website has a history of the UP
Medallion. For this era, see:
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/history/uplogo/logo07.shtml
This site says that the medallion without the "Overland" banner was
not developed until May 1942. My collection of UP Timetables pretty
much confirms that. The January 25, 1942 (revised to 2-15-42) UP
public timetable still has the banner. I don't have any of the April
5, 1942 issues, but the website has a photo of one showing the "Pearl
Harbor" medallion on the cover. The July 1, 1942 public timetable
has the medallion without the banner.

Next, the drawing for the UP medallion (to be used on refrigerator
cars) without the "Overland" banner is shown in Phil Da Costa's book
on page 36. It is UP drawing 303-C-3073 rev B, issued in July 1942.
The revision note mentions redrawing the medallion and omitting "The
Overland Route".

Finally, the PFE book says that the R-40-14s (#44701 to 45700) were
built by PC&F in 1941. I have copies of car cards for 44739 (built
8-11-41) and 45698 (built 12-20-41) that put the R-40-14 delivery in
the second half of 1941.

So, we have delivery of all the R-40-14 class at a time when UP
itself was still actively using "The Overland Route" banner on its
medallion. The R-40-14 class delivery was also completed before a
drawing was prepared for a refrigerator car UP medallion without the
banner. That leads me to believe the "Overland" banner was present
on the R-40-14 class cars.

Like I said at the start, I don't have a photo to confirm it, but I
believe the UP medallion WITH "The Overland Route" banner was used on
the PFE R-40-14 cars when new. Certainly, photos contrary to that
would be new evidence that would cause me to rethink that position.

Other evidence, thoughts and opinions are certainly welcome.

Cheers,
Dick Harley
Laguna Beach, CA






Re: Magazine question

asychis@...
 

Try _www.railpub.com_ (http://www.railpub.com) you will be pleased. It is
a great site and the owner (Paul Gibson) provides wonderful service.

Jerry Michels


Re: Magazine question

jim peters
 

Frank,



Got Mainline Aug 86, RMJ Nov89



Find Mark - Last time I saw him (Fall 08) - Adrian might know if he's back up North) Anyway Mark was bragging he had every MM except the very first and the last two.



Give me a call - You should have my number - Or contact me off list.



Jim Peters

Coquitlam, BC



To: stmfc@yahoogroups.com
From: destron@vcn.bc.ca
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:15:27 -0800
Subject: [STMFC] Magazine question






Hi,

Wondering if anyone might have any or all of these magazines that they'd
sell?

RMC: April 82
Mainline: May 84, Dec 84, Aug 86, Oct 86
RMJ: Nov 89

Thanks.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC





_________________________________________________________________



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

100121 - 100140 of 188504