Mike, Agreed. But I think it needs to be said that you can not provide information if you are not asked. Some years ago someone authoring a book asked me for photos and some specific information.

A photo of the prototype car appears in "Classic Freight Cars vol. 7". It is some version of an X29/ara box car, with flat ends and bottom hung youngstown door, and no patch panels. All my

Russ- You're right about the BREX. Closer inspection of the entry indicates that the car number is 74782. FGEX 108999 had too many 9's (10899). Your suggestion for URTX instead of URTS is

Dennis, Thank you very much, as the roof detail jpg as it clearly answers my question. The door in Sunshine kit 78.3 is a bit to long and the hangars way to big, but now that I know the correct

The 11xxx block on CN was reserved for box-baggage cars (passenger service), which is why they didn't appear in the ORERs -- although 10xxx express reefers did. Go figure! Anyways, the 11069 was

Tom Madden writes: "Critiques are important to the integrity of the body of knowledge we're assembling, and no one should be shy about offering one when necessary." Absolutely. Anyone who makes a

I've found photos of CN boxcars numbered 11069 (1939 build date) and 11128 (1942? build date), but these aren't listed in my 1953 ORER. Does anyone know if these were renumbered at some point? Frank

In the absence of documentary evidence (which, of course, some list member may be able to supply), I'd agree with Bill. I have several photos of U. S. Army box cars, but all were either antiques

Larry, Thanks for the info. On CB&Q wheel reports were from the rear end but setout lists were supposed to be from the head end. Conductors had to do a lot of writing. My observations: X3569: Line

Well. In defending a thesis, you can't expect to be treated lightly. To bring this only very slightly towards topicality... what was this about? (Offlist answer'd be the best, I think...) Frank

today. > Here is the roster: <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/STMFPH/files/Soo_%22Sawtooth%22_Primer/Roster.txt> Dennis

Kurt Laughlin wrote: Sure. Academics are human too. I was speaking of the more typical NON-animus style of academic review, which itself can seem bruising to the non-initiated. Tony Thompson

This is the kit that models SOO series cars #40200-41798, built in 1928-29, with top supported Youngstown doors, Dreadnaught ends. with and it is not real sharp, but I am not sure the Sunshine

Arnold The U.S. Army did have some "1923 ARA" design box cars at least in the late 1950's. I am not sure but I think the reporting marks should be USAX, not USA. Also I am not sure which Red Caboose

Tom Madden wrote: Good summary, Tom. Glad to see this kind of viewpoint rather than the shouting about "elitists" who "know too much," etc. The point about the way academic reviews are made and

Dear Arnold There were no U.S. Army boxcars (in any reporting marks) in my 1943 ORER. The Transportation Corps herald on the car indicates that such a car would be post WWII. My guess, subject to

Peter, excellent idea. After looking through the patents, it appears that the design of the Evans Auto Loader changed over time. The original apparatus appears to have just 'grabbed the tires'

On the whole I found the exchange fairly civil. Heated, yes, even testy, but civil. Anyone who has had their work exposed to academic or scientific review certainly recognized the process and

Sirs, Is this Red Caboose "U.S. ARMY" boxcar