Date   

New TOFC Items

Bill Welch
 

I was reading the latest issue of "Model Freightways" today that focuses on 1/87 trucks. Although I cannot really model TOFC in Dixieland in 1955, I thought people that can may want to know the following news.


1.) Walthers is bring back 53-ft. and 75-ft piggy back flats—cast metal u/f along with 32-ft Vans and eventually 40-ft vans.

2.) Bachman is showing 53' 6" flat with 50's era 35-ft van. MF Editor Bob Sundstrom is truck and van authority so I am assuming the trailer is accurate. Don't know about the flat but I am crazy enough to buy one or two for the vans/trailers and give the flast away. 52ft Flat Car w/ 35ft Trailer : Bachmann Trains Online Store


Bill Welch


Re: Hopper cars from the UPHS and...

Dick Harley
 

Mike gives the UPHS more credit than they deserve.

Atlas changed the tooling on their own, long before UPHS decided to join the latest Atlas production run of those cars in China.
Mike's article and others' comments to Atlas had more to do with the corrected car than anything the UPHS did. Check that article for what's needed to correct older versions of the car.

You CAN credit the UPHS with having enough sense to have me do the lettering for the cars.

There are folks within the UPHS who think 'foobies' are fine, and others (like me) who don't. What gets sold by the society at any point in time depends on who is in charge and/or who yells the loudest (sort of like politics). I am definitely not in charge, and have pretty much given up yelling.


Cheers,
Dick Harley
Laguna Beach, CA


Re: SP F-70-7 Flat with 22" PMT Trailers

Andy Carlson
 

Or, if you want the HO specifically designed truck which came with these kits the first couple of years after the release from red Caboose (The original company offering these flats), go to Dan Smith as he has several dozen of these trucks left. They have the correct spring pack. I am sending a CC to Dan, so expect him to contact you.
-Andy Carlson
Ojai CA


From: "Tony Thompson tony@... [STMFC]"

 
George Toman wrote:

 
Hello group, I purchased a SP F-70-7 Flat and the 22Foot PMT Trailers from the SPH&TS. Looks like nice kits, but I would like to improve the detail. I was wondering if someone could tell me the type of trucks these used (I think the included ones in the kit are 50 ton AAR) and if any online photos are available. Looking for both the Flat and Trailers Photos.  I was thinking that the Tahoe Double Truss AAR 50 Ton Part #TMW-107 might be what I need.

     George, the cars were delivered with Barber S-2-A0 trucks, built under license by three manufacturers (Scullin, Buckeye and Symington) and were of course 70-ton trucks, as indicated by the class number, F-70-7. I am not aware of any 70-ton Barber trucks out there in HO scale, so you have two choices. The Tahoe 113 (or 213) Barber S2 trucks, though of 50-ton capacity, would at least have the right overall look. Most 70-ton trucks, though, are visibly bigger, especially with bigger journal boxes in most cases, and Tahoe does make a very nice 70-ton truck, the ASF A-3 (TMW 110 or 210), a truck SP used on many of its cars and might well have used to replace a damaged S2 truck. That would be your call.








Re: SP F-70-7 Flat with 22" PMT Trailers

Tim O'Connor
 


George and Tony -- Red Caboose tooled the correct 70 ton Barber trucks for
these cars. I'm guessing the SPH&TS didn't acquire the truck tooling along with
the flat car?

I have a supply of them for my own flat cars -- I got them from Dan Smith.

Tim O'Connor



     George, the cars were delivered with Barber S-2-A0 trucks, built under license by three manufacturers (Scullin, Buckeye and Symington) and were of course 70-ton trucks, as indicated by the class number, F-70-7. I am not aware of any 70-ton Barber trucks out there in HO scale, so you have two choices. The Tahoe 113 (or 213) Barber S2 trucks, though of 50-ton capacity, would at least have the right overall look. Most 70-ton trucks, though, are visibly bigger, especially with bigger journal boxes in most cases, and Tahoe does make a very nice 70-ton truck, the ASF A-3 (TMW 110 or 210), a truck SP used on many of its cars and might well have used to replace a damaged S2 truck. That would be your call.

Tony Thompson  


Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

Tim O'Connor
 


This isn't new. Why, even as we speak, there are squads of Prototype Police scouring
the countryside to confiscate and destroy inaccurate models of freight cars to ensure
that not even a trace of them ends up in a landfill, much less be allowed to operate
on a layout (*shudder*) in full view of an unsuspecting and gullible public.

Tim "Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Vigilance!" O'Connor


If we go further and insist on producing only perfect miniatures we might be getting rather close to a peculiar subset of ship modellers and researchers who have advocated that people should never, not ever, be allowed to build imperfectly constructed and researched ship  models as the models they make might one day be used by future researchers as being representative of historical fact.

Aha! A new frontier for us freight car geeks! Thank you Aidrian, for showing us another way forward! 

Tony Thompson


Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

Tim O'Connor
 

Ike

That blade has two edges. People who are serious historical modelers might submit their articles to
another publication rather than have it appear alongside some clearly incorrect article. You can't please
everyone. I think the electronic and printed (GNRHS for example) modeling magazines are indeed the
best way to promote historical society prototype modeling.

Tim O'Connor


Re HS magazine articles: I agree except that for many people that would submit a modeling article, having their inaccurate information pointed out or performing heavy editing or vetting will simply reinforce the idea that HS groups are elitist and do not want their input.

Ike


Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2 (UNCLASSIFIED)

devansprr
 

All,

Sorry for what may appear to be a shameless plug, but one thing Bruce and Elden did not note, but has been important to the success of TKM, is that nearly every rolling stock article that I can recall starts out with a brief history of the prototype so modelers can get their bearings on the particular prototype. Key features of the prototype, improvements over previous cars of similar types, dates and fleet size, and other historical information so a modeler could assess the need for making a comparable model.

Very useful information, and not being a contributor to TKM, it would be interesting to know who did that part of the research and writing - the modeler, or the editorial staff. Perhaps Bruce, Ben or Elden (all significant contributors to the TKM), could chime in. And was the process easier because it was being accomplished using the resources of a historical society, or was it more the case where the historical society was providing more of an "incubator" environment for the editorial/publication team?

Description of this process may help others assess the viability to other societies (although Bruce and Elden have offered to provide advice off line.)

I would also note that many of the articles would quickly summarize the models available at the time the article was written, which would help future modelers quickly assess if a newer product was not included because it was released after the article.

Dave Evans


---In STMFC@..., <elden.j.gatwood@...> wrote :

Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE

Folks;

A very challenging thread...

I would add that, having feet on both sides (prototype pubs and modeling pubs), there was a lot of thought that went into the decision on The Keystone and (versus) TKM. I think it paid off rather well.

Many PRRT&HS members were anxious about putting modeling info into the Key, and while I cared at the time, I no longer care. TKM proved to be a good forum. But it didn't just happen.

When Al asked me what I wanted from the Society, and I told him, "a digital modeling magazine", there was an even larger dialog going on, on how we could get info on the PRR "out there". We all recognized that the problem wasn't just the problem with putting it into the Key, it was also a problem with every other existing printed publication:

1) Limited text;

2) Limited room for the prototype context;

3) and especially, limited space for photos, particularly color photos.

4) Crappy editing.

Digital magazines have room for ALL of 1 through 3, and you can always come back and update it with new techniques, new models, etc.

The real issue, however, in standing all this up is that SOMEONE has to want it, and then make it happen. I have been lucky to be part of a core group in the PRRT&HS that WANTS it bad enough to populate it.

For those that are interested in doing something like this for their HS, feel free to ask us for some help. We'd be happy to tell you what worked, and we can even give you an article format, if you like.

Elden Gatwood


 


Re: Stock car question

michaelegross <michaelEGross@...>
 

Thank you, Steve.  That’s a nice comparison photo.  Very helpful.


Re: Prototype fidelity

destorzek@...
 




---In STMFC@..., <hayden_tom@...> wrote :

"I'd like to chime in here. I agree with the “moderates” in this argument. RR Historical societies have their place, their own goals, skills, desires, funds, etc. This STMFC group and all us Prototype Modelers have our place, goals, skills desires, funds, etc. Even among us prototype modelers there is a very wide range of standards as to how accurate is accurate "enough". All of us try for "better" as we increase our skills and funds. But the range of accuracy each of us individuals accept is very wide, indeed. And keep in mind that even if we count every "prototype modeler" I would guess we are still way down in terms of percentage of total Railroad Modelers, and I would include all the Lionel and toy train fans. So who are we to decree that Historical Societies owe us special consideration and must adhere to OUR definition of an accurate model, even IF we could agree on some specific level of accuracy. If a society can earn some funding, and at the same time generate more interest in their society and their specific "fallen flag" more power to them- hurrah. Think of all the new young railfans and potential modelers,and ultimately potential Prototype modelers this helps create."

 

I couldn't agree more, and I've been involved with historical society fund raiser cars for close to 30 years now. Just for grins, I went all the way back to the first message that started this current round of discussion:



"Now that I’ve rambled on let me get to the reason for this post. How many group members trust what an historical society offers to be reasonably prototypical? I feel the average Joe modeler does.
I was given the opportunity to see a photo of the next cars being offered by the CNWHS at their annual convention next spring. They have chosen to have Accurail do two CGW box cars for them. One is a one only 40’ 8’ door PS1 with a SL badge. The Accurail model’s a fair choice. The second car is a 40’ 6’ door PS1 with DF badge. Does Accurail offer a PS1 with a 6’ door? No. So guess what carbody they put the paint job on? Their 3500 series AAR box car! A completely wrong car! This convention is a joint convention with the UP society. So they reweighed one of the cars with the reweigh station symbol of UP.
To me this is worst than the Atlas tank car goof...They are abusing the modeler’s trust, or showing them little if any respect."

Any of these society projects I've even been involved with has always made a point to mention whose kit the car is produced on, if, for no other reason, than they see the reputation of the kit manufacturer as a selling point... people who know Accurail kits fit their skill level will be happy, and those that suspect that there are issues with prototype fidelity, however it is defined, can easily search the Accurail web site to see how close the model comes to their mark. No organization that I am aware of has ever advertised one of these offerings as the "last word in prototype fidelity - if you don't buy only these we are going to suspend your membership." None of the organizations that I am aware of have ever tried to "trick" some unsuspecting modeler into making a purchase he'd later regret. The worst that can happen is at some point, if the modeler gains the knowledge that the model makes compromises he can no longer live with, he either sells it or gives it away.

Any time one of the manufacturers actually makes a special body for some organization, that fact is prominently feature is the ads, reviews, whatever.

So, to sum up, I didn't see what the problem was years ago when the societies were running custom dcorated "blue box" cars, and I still don't see the problem, but the subject certainly can be relied upon to start a lively discussion to exclusion of everything else.

Dennis Storzek



Re: SP F-70-7 Flat with 22" PMT Trailers

Tony Thompson
 

George Toman wrote:

 

Hello group, I purchased a SP F-70-7 Flat and the 22Foot PMT Trailers from the SPH&TS. Looks like nice kits, but I would like to improve the detail. I was wondering if someone could tell me the type of trucks these used (I think the included ones in the kit are 50 ton AAR) and if any online photos are available. Looking for both the Flat and Trailers Photos.  I was thinking that the Tahoe Double Truss AAR 50 Ton Part #TMW-107 might be what I need.


     George, the cars were delivered with Barber S-2-A0 trucks, built under license by three manufacturers (Scullin, Buckeye and Symington) and were of course 70-ton trucks, as indicated by the class number, F-70-7. I am not aware of any 70-ton Barber trucks out there in HO scale, so you have two choices. The Tahoe 113 (or 213) Barber S2 trucks, though of 50-ton capacity, would at least have the right overall look. Most 70-ton trucks, though, are visibly bigger, especially with bigger journal boxes in most cases, and Tahoe does make a very nice 70-ton truck, the ASF A-3 (TMW 110 or 210), a truck SP used on many of its cars and might well have used to replace a damaged S2 truck. That would be your call.

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





SP F-70-7 Flat with 22" PMT Trailers

gtws00
 

Hello group, I purchased a SP F-70-7 Flat and the 22Foot PMT Trailers from the SPH&TS. Looks like nice kits, but I would like to improve the detail. I was wondering if someone could tell me the type of trucks these used (I think the included ones in the kit are 50 ton AAR) and if any online photos are available. Looking for both the Flat and Trailers Photos.  I was thinking that the Tahoe Double Truss AAR 50 Ton Part #TMW-107 might be what I need.

Thanks for your help

George Toman



Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

genegreen1942@...
 

I would like to most sincerely thank all who expressed their opinions in this discussion.  There was some excellent thinking and good writing by all participants, and some passion, too.  I plan to copy every message, remove the crap yahoo adds, and save the entire discussion (which may not yet be at an end) to study carefully.  There were a lot of good ideas that may help me in a discussion in an unrelated area.  Good job, guys!  And thanks to Mike for allowing it to continue.
Gene Green


Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

 

Each time I did a new model I would send a sample to Byron Rose as thanks for reviewing my instructions.  Inevitably, he would call to complain that I could have done it much better and with more detail.  Just as inevitably I would tell him the perfection is the enemy of excellence.  Only once did he commend me, the time he did most of the masters. – Al Westerfield
 

Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Prototype Fidelity - Part 2
 
 

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton wrote:

 
If we go further and insist on producing only perfect miniatures we might be getting rather close to a peculiar subset of ship modellers and researchers who have advocated that people should never, not ever, be allowed to build imperfectly constructed and researched ship  models as the models they make might one day be used by future researchers as being representative of historical fact.
 
      Aha! A new frontier for us freight car geeks! Thank you Aidrian, for showing us another way forward! 
 
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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history
 




Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

Tony Thompson
 

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton wrote:

 
If we go further and insist on producing only perfect miniatures we might be getting rather close to a peculiar subset of ship modellers and researchers who have advocated that people should never, not ever, be allowed to build imperfectly constructed and researched ship  models as the models they make might one day be used by future researchers as being representative of historical fact.

      Aha! A new frontier for us freight car geeks! Thank you Aidrian, for showing us another way forward!  

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, tony@...
Publishers of books on railroad history





Re: Prototype Fidelity - Part 2

Aidrian Bridgeman-Sutton
 




>>>But...there is a problem. As a high proportion of modelers are not interested in "nit picking" or "rivet counting", they can, and do, accept models that are less than perfect reproductions of their prototypes. So, if someone were to submit an article on a Southern Railway box car that was truly a beautiful model but they kit bashed a car with an somewhat  incorrect end, or the correct trucks were simply not available, should the article be published or excluded because it was not completely accurate? 


No issue here - all modelling is a compromise and the level of compromise that we can accept is what differentiates us. Some like detailed underframes - I don't go so far as this as the compromise of having screws holding the trucks on makes the view from below less satisfying.

If the work being published requires a compromise, then as long as the limitations are noted in the article I really don't see any problem, though I might be a bit perturbed if the real car were fifty foot cars and the model only forty. Somebody does a conversion using a car with cast on ladders and leave the ladders stock? Well those of us that choose to use aftermarket can do this anyway, but such an article might just encourage someone to start their first conversion. 

If we go further and insist on producing only perfect miniatures we might be getting rather close to a peculiar subset of ship modellers and researchers who have advocated that people should never, not ever, be allowed to build imperfectly constructed and researched ship  models as the models they make might one day be used by future researchers as being representative of historical fact.

Aidrian


Re: Identity of very large FD built February 1941

 

The advert I posted is now available.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/STMFC/photos/albums/1534650338/lightbox/
2107600402?orderBy=ordinal&sortOrder=asc&photoFilter=ALL#zax/2107600402


Thanks!
--

Brian Ehni

From: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Reply-To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Date: Sunday, November 23, 2014 at 11:10 PM
To: STMFC List <STMFC@...>
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Identity of very large FD built February 1941







Sorry guys I just got through my mail and discovered it was resolved.

Greg Martin

Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean

In a message dated 11/23/2014 7:10:27 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
STMFC@... writes:





Was this ever resolved? I was away over most of the weekend and it occurred
to me that I know of that car it was a 50-ton car built for Carnegie_Illinois
Steel Corp. CISX 500 or at least I believe that is the correct car number.



Greg Martin



Eventually all things merge into one and a river runs through it.
Norman Maclean



In a message dated 11/21/2014 6:03:36 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
STMFC@... writes:






Over on the Kalmbach forum, there's discussion about the identity of a car
in a photograph:








http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/opML58.jpg





<http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/opML58.jpg>

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/opML58...
<http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/opML58.jpg>


View on imagizer.imageshack.us
<http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/1600x1200q90/907/opML58.jpg>
Preview by Yahoo










I get the car having 4 6-wheel Buckeye trucks. Capacity is 500,000 pounds.
And build date is February 1941.





Does anyone know what the reporting marks might be? I can't find anything
anywhere near the numbers above.





The big thingy is JUMBO. It was designed to contain a non-critical
detonation of a plutonium bomb. And it weighed a lot.





Here is perhaps a better copy of the photo:











TR-017
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597514026/in/set-721576248810
00675/>






<https://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597514026/in/set-721576248810
00675/>

TR-017
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597514026/in/set-721576248810
00675/> Explore Los Alamos National Laboratory's photos on Flickr. Los
Alamos National Laboratory has uploaded 1124 photos to Flickr.


View on www.flickr.com
<https://www.flickr.com/photos/losalamosnatlab/7597514026/in/set-721576248810
00675/>
Preview by Yahoo
















Ed





Edward Sutorik










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


Re: Seaboard Decals

paul.doggett2472 <paul.doggett2472@...>
 

John its D103 not D104 they are Western Maryland.

Paul Doggett UK




Sent from Samsung mobile


Re: Prototype fidelity

water.kresse@...
 

Sadly, even in the Historical Society world lately there is a "keep it inexpensive and RTR" trend.  As an author, pointing out the uniqueness's of specific freight cars now has to be focused on the model producers.  Maybe five percent want to modify a model from my feedback.  They put their creativity and efforts into their layout which they "build" themselves.  Maybe that will change as the economy picks up and the modelers have more income to "play" with.
Al Kresse


From: "Steam Era Frt Car Group"
To: "Steam Era Frt Car Group"
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2014 1:02:14 PM
Subject: [STMFC] Re: Prototype fidelity

 

I'd like to chime in here. I agree with the “moderates” in this argument. RR Historical societies have their place, their own goals, skills, desires, funds, etc. This STMFC group and all us Prototype Modelers have our place, goals, skills desires, funds, etc. Even among us prototype modelers there is a very wide range of standards as to how accurate is accurate "enough". All of us try for "better" as we increase our skills and funds. But the range of accuracy each of us individuals accept is very wide, indeed. And keep in mind that even if we count every "prototype modeler" I would guess we are still way down in terms of percentage of total Railroad Modelers, and I would include all the Lionel and toy train fans. So who are we to decree that Historical Societies owe us special consideration and must adhere to OUR definition of an accurate model, even IF we could agree on some specific level of accuracy. If a society can earn some funding, and at the same time generate more interest in their society and their specific "fallen flag" more power to them- hurrah. Think of all the new young railfans and potential modelers,and ultimately potential Prototype modelers this helps create. 

 

So I find no fault in any Historical society selling any "model" lettered for their fallen flag. Even a Lionel car or "blue box" car is fair. And I don't think the car being sold needs any explanation as to its accuracy, any more than the society needs to explain the "accuracy" of the coffee mugs it sells. Those of us who care can make that determination and discuss it (undoubtedly at length) here or other appropriate places. And IF, due to the extra efforts of some society members or leadership or some manufacturer, we are so fortunate that the car does come close to an accurate model of a prototype car, THEN I would expect the society to make some additional notations in their promotions about the level of accuracy they were able to achieve. Hopefully the "accurate" car will still be priced so that others beyond us prototype modelers would still be interested in purchasing it. But we should understand that making an "accurate" model of a particular road's car may be quite difficult to achieve at a reasonable price. And the decision as to whether it's worth the effort will depend on the leadership's vision of the society's goals and interests.

 

As to INFORMATION for us prototype modelers, I absolutely agree that any historical society, virtually by definition, should be focused on accumulating and sharing historical information about locomotives, rolling stock, buildings, operations, etc.of their railroad.They should strive continually to make that information as accurate and accessible as possible. And to the extent that a "model" they are selling is a representation of that information, "some" level of effort toward accuracy makes sense. I would be disappointed if a society offered a model for sale that did not display "some" level of accuracy. Correct lettering style, logo, and correct color would be some minimal level of information transferred that seems easy enough to achieve without excess expense. 


Tom Hayden



Re: Prototype fidelity

hayden_tom@...
 

I'd like to chime in here. I agree with the “moderates” in this argument. RR Historical societies have their place, their own goals, skills, desires, funds, etc. This STMFC group and all us Prototype Modelers have our place, goals, skills desires, funds, etc. Even among us prototype modelers there is a very wide range of standards as to how accurate is accurate "enough". All of us try for "better" as we increase our skills and funds. But the range of accuracy each of us individuals accept is very wide, indeed. And keep in mind that even if we count every "prototype modeler" I would guess we are still way down in terms of percentage of total Railroad Modelers, and I would include all the Lionel and toy train fans. So who are we to decree that Historical Societies owe us special consideration and must adhere to OUR definition of an accurate model, even IF we could agree on some specific level of accuracy. If a society can earn some funding, and at the same time generate more interest in their society and their specific "fallen flag" more power to them- hurrah. Think of all the new young railfans and potential modelers,and ultimately potential Prototype modelers this helps create. 

 

So I find no fault in any Historical society selling any "model" lettered for their fallen flag. Even a Lionel car or "blue box" car is fair. And I don't think the car being sold needs any explanation as to its accuracy, any more than the society needs to explain the "accuracy" of the coffee mugs it sells. Those of us who care can make that determination and discuss it (undoubtedly at length) here or other appropriate places. And IF, due to the extra efforts of some society members or leadership or some manufacturer, we are so fortunate that the car does come close to an accurate model of a prototype car, THEN I would expect the society to make some additional notations in their promotions about the level of accuracy they were able to achieve. Hopefully the "accurate" car will still be priced so that others beyond us prototype modelers would still be interested in purchasing it. But we should understand that making an "accurate" model of a particular road's car may be quite difficult to achieve at a reasonable price. And the decision as to whether it's worth the effort will depend on the leadership's vision of the society's goals and interests.

 

As to INFORMATION for us prototype modelers, I absolutely agree that any historical society, virtually by definition, should be focused on accumulating and sharing historical information about locomotives, rolling stock, buildings, operations, etc.of their railroad.They should strive continually to make that information as accurate and accessible as possible. And to the extent that a "model" they are selling is a representation of that information, "some" level of effort toward accuracy makes sense. I would be disappointed if a society offered a model for sale that did not display "some" level of accuracy. Correct lettering style, logo, and correct color would be some minimal level of information transferred that seems easy enough to achieve without excess expense. 


Tom Hayden


Re: The Best of Mainline Modeler's Freight Cars

arved_grass
 

Thanks Ben

I saw reference to Volume 1, book 4 of passenger cars, which also confused me, but is beyond the scope of this list. I presume they just kept going with the book numbers covering passenger cars and bridges, and added volume number to the series within the topic.

That probably sounds more complicated than it means. Here's what I've found which now makes a bit more sense:

Volume 1 Book 1 (covering freight cars)
Volume 2 Book 2 (covering freight cars)
Volume 3 Book 3 (covering freight cars)
Volume 1 Book 4 (restarting the volume with the passenger car series, but continuing the book series numbering)
Volume 1 Book 5 (covering bridges)

Arved Grass
Arved_Grass@... or Arved@...
Fleming Island, Florida

--------------------------------------------

On Mon, 11/24/14, Benjamin Hom b.hom@... [STMFC] <STMFC@...> wrote:

Subject: Re: [STMFC] The Best of Mainline Modeler's Freight Cars
To: STMFC@...
Date: Monday, November 24, 2014, 12:03 PM
















 









Arved Grass asked:

"There were at least 3 volumes of this title published
by Phoenix Publishing about 1990. I can only find

the first three volumes on the used book market. Was there
ever a volume 4 (or more)?"



No.  There was a single Passenger Car volume, but no
further freight car volume beyond the third book.



Ben Hom

65441 - 65460 of 194765