Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
Dick Bale wrote:
From various copies of the ARA/AAR Dictionary of Car Terms published fromSince this period appears to cover the STMFC period fairly fully, I'd say we're done here <g>. And incidentally, those terms didn't start in 1919; they go back at least as far as 1903, in the CBD copy I have. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
Generally, compound nouns in English have tended to drift over time> from two words to two words hyphenated to one word, so - as is often > the case - there is no RIGHT answer here. Richard Hendrickson Fortunately, long before there was spell checking, "regular expressions" were used in computing for text pattern matching. Yahoo allows this to a small but useful degree, so that if you search for box* [box star?] that expression will match box, box car, boxcar, box-car, boxcars, box cars, and so on and so forth. Thus technology helps us to overcome differences in spelling! Tim O'Connor |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
John, it's box car.
The only authorities I know are the editors and writers of the Car Builder's Cyclopedia of American Practice, circa STMFC era -- and the several mechanical departments of railroads represented therein -- and they are quite clear that the term is "box car". I never use Microsoft spell check. I don't want to constrict my vocabulary to that of a junior grade software engineer. :-) Tim O'Connor |
|
Re: NYC PS-2 covered hopper...
rwitt_2000
Tim O'Connor wrote:
1958cft covered hoppers but are a tiny fraction larger, at 2000cft.customer wanted -- not just PS-1, PS-2, etc.According to the information on the Fallen Flags website these cars are dimensional the same as an earlier batch built by Despatch Shops to NYC's unique design and are grouped together with the later ones from Pullman-Standard (NYC 882050-882649) in the series 881200-882549. According to the table the IL is the same, but width was 4" wider at 9"-9", than the ACF design to provide for the increased cubic capacity. There is another series 882650-882849 that had the same capacity and internal dimensions. The link to the table is below. It looks like there maybe an error in the table with the series numbers such that the first group should end at 882649, end number for the group of cars Steve originally inquired about, not 882549. http://www.rr-fallenflags.org/nyc/nyc-hop.html Bob Witt |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
soolinehistory <destorzek@...>
--- In STMFC@..., "stevelucas3" <stevelucas3@...> wrote:
As has already been mentioned, we currently have one, the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia, formerly the Car Builder's Cyclopedia, originally the Car Builder's Dictionary. The original purpose of this publication was to standardize the lexicon, a duty it performed until the last edition was published in 1997. I see in the last edition the editors were having a problem with this same issue; the entry BOXCAR is immediately followed by BOX CAR DOOR, which is used on the sides of BOX CARS. But by then, the C&LC was mostly fluff, intended more for railfans (rail fans?) than industry. By the way, don't get me started on that awful model rail aberration, "throwing a turnout". It will provoke a discussion that will be heated and never-ending!! And Mike will have to re-open the cells in the Moderator's Gaol.T'was me, I'd defer to the usage in the Railway Maintenance and Engineering Cyclopedia. Pick whichever edition suits your era. Dennis |
|
Re: NYC PS-2 covered hopper...
Tony Thompson wrote
> ... I would be willing to bet that no one but Pullman-Standard built PS-2s, > not even Despatch Shops. (Though Greenville, if memory serves, did make a > very similar car to the PS-2.) Greenville made some near-perfect clones, and ACF made cars that came very close to being clones of the 2003cft PS-2. The cloning continued with larger cars too. So these NYC cars are just payback I guess. :-) Tim O'Connor |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
SUVCWORR@...
Just my take on this
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
a box car is a car for transporting boxes a boxcar is a railroad car shaped like a box According to Random House dictionary both are correct for a completely enclosed freight car. Rich Orr
-----Original Message-----
From: John Golden <golden1014@...> To: stmfc@... Sent: Mon, Jun 20, 2011 12:57 pm Subject: [STMFC] Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car? Gentlemen, I've often seen both terms in print--"box car" and "boxcar". I have always felt that boxcar was incorrect use of the English language since use of the term would lead to words such as tankcar and hoppercar and flat car. However I routinely see the term boxcar in both the professional and hobby press. Can anyone cite an English language reason why we would use such a term? Yes, I know the English language isn't perfect--that argument doesn't count. Wikipedia lists the term as "boxcar" and then describes it as a "goods van". Following the logic, wouldn't that therefore be goodsvan? And why stop there--why not railroadcar or switchpoint or tieplate? Help me stop the madness. If Ben can stop the United States from using dashes, then maybe together we can stop MS Word from spellchecking box car to boxcar. John John Golden O'Fallon, IL 2011 St. Louis RPM Meet Info: http://icg.home.mindspring.com/rpm/stlrpm2011.htm [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
stevelucas3 <stevelucas3@...>
We almost need a "style guide", "style manual", or other mutually acceptable reference for this, don't we??
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Style_guide "Types of style guides Publishers' style guides establish house rules for language use, such as spelling, italics and punctuation; their major purpose is consistency. They are rulebooks for writers, ensuring consistent language. Authors are asked or required to use a style guide in preparing their work for publication; copy editors are charged with enforcing the publishing house's style." By the way, don't get me started on that awful model rail aberration, "throwing a turnout". It will provoke a discussion that will be heated and never-ending!! And Mike will have to re-open the cells in the Moderator's Gaol. Steve Lucas.
--- In STMFC@..., Richard Hendrickson <rhendrickson@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: New Intermountain Andrews Trucks?
Richard Hendrickson
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:02 AM, John Golden wrote:
Gentlemen,John, the USRA Andrews trucks on my IM Santa Fe Caswell gondolas appear to be made by or for them. They're similar but not the same as Accurail's Andrews trucks. Both are very good; they have well formed and detailed, and prototypically slender, side frames but the brake shoes don't line up with the wheels and there is no brake rigging. I happen to know that Brian Leppert at Tahoe Model Works is making dies for a USRA Andrews truck even as I write, and though I don't know when those trucks will be for sale, you might want to wait for them, as they will be (as usual) superior to everyone else's trucks of that type. Richard Hendrickson |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
Richard Hendrickson
On Jun 20, 2011, at 11:09 AM, Anthony Thompson wrote:
John Golden wrote:I'm going to put on my linguist hat (I was a professor of EnglishI've often seen both terms in print--"box car" and "boxcar". I haveMy view, like John's, is that the correct term is "box car," lingustics for thirty-three years before I retired) and agree with Tony's remarks here, as well as his assertion that, when writing about railroad subjects to a railroad-oriented audience, the practice of the Car Builders' Dictionaries and Cyclopedias should be followed. General use dictionaries, e.g. the Merriam-Webster 3rd cited by Andy Sperandeo, follow majority practice in written documents as a whole, and in this case the dictionary editors themselves aren't in agreement; among the modern dictionaries on my bookshelf, both boxcar and box car appear as entries. That Kalmbach uses Merriam-Webster 3rd as a standard isn't surprising, since they have to have some sort of standard and they publish periodicals for a wide range of readers. However, I'm going to continue to write box car and let whoever publishes my stuff change it to boxcar if they insist, as Kalmbach in fact did in the most recent of my writings that they published. Generally, compound nouns in English have tended to drift over time from two words to two words hyphenated to one word, so - as is often the case - there is no RIGHT answer here. usage among the literate being divided. My personal advice to John Golden and others would be to stick with whatever practice they're comfortable with, recognizing that whatever it is may not conform with a particular publisher's style book/reference dictionary and the publisher may change it. Richard Hendrickson |
|
Re: LV Steam Era Decals
mforsyth127
Joel Holmes wrote:
Hi John, Thank you for the information. However, I cannot bring up a web site for CDS. Do you have a web site or an address? Joel, The correct address for TMR is: http://www.canadasouthern.com/tmr/CDS.htm I count three available CDS sets for steam-era freight cars, and the twin hopper is one of them. Matt Forsyth Modeling the D&H Penn Division Erie Jefferson Division in Proto48 Late Summer of 1952 http://mattforsyth.com/ |
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
Richard Wilkens <railsnw@...>
Strasburg is also Rail Road.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Richard Wilkens
--- In STMFC@..., john.allyn@... wrote:
|
|
Re: NYC PS-2 covered hopper...
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
Whoops--memo to self--finish post before hitting "send" button!!
Steve Lucas. --- In STMFC@..., "Steve Lucas" <stevelucas3@...> wrote: http://www.images.technomuses.ca/searchpf.php?id=83979&lang=en and also cut off all detail below the slope sheets, making new end sills and bracing. The model's structural integrity was to my mind, not compromised. But YMMV...
|
|
Re: NYC PS-2 covered hopper...
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
Back in 10 BSTMFC, I shortened an Athearn offset hopper car and also cut off all detail below the slope sheets, making new end sills and bracing. The model's structural integrity was.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
--- In STMFC@..., jerryglow@... wrote:
|
|
Re: Color film
Al and Patricia Westerfield <westerfield@...>
The Technicolor movie cameras were immense because they had to handle three strips of film. And very costly which is why most films were still shot in B&W well into the 1950s. By contract there was a Technicolor company consultant on the set at all times. The single strip used today has never come close to Technicolor in quality. At one time you could purchase 35mm Technicolor slide film, processing included. - Al Westerfield
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
----- Original Message -----
From: gpnrr To: STMFC@... Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 2:43 PM Subject: [STMFC] Re: Color film I'm not certain of the motion picture processes such as Technicolor, but in still photography there was a camera that shot three holders of black/white film through red, green and blue filters. It was fairly large if you can imagine a common 4x5 Speed Graphic as a starting point. By removing the three darkslides, then a single exposure was made on each piece of film. Light was transferred to the three film planes via pellical type mirrors. Although the camera required a tripod they were used in the field, so it very possible some early freight cars were photographed in that manner. In the early 70's a local, deceased photographer's estate contained one of those cameras. In photography school (69-71) everyone learned the process of dye-transfer by essentially the same process via three individual exposures through these separation filters. Through a fairly lengthy process individual colors are then placed on a sheet of white paper in perfect registration. The dye transfer process was considered "thee high end" process until sometime in the late 80's, when Kodak stopped supplying the materials. Color prints in large sizes were sold for thousands. Dye transfer prints are very controllable, have a high saturation/detail level, and will last a 100 years. The downside was the labor intensity and unless protected the colors would run if they got wet. These same black/white negatives could be used in typical offset 4 color printing for mass distribution. Some photographers who want to preserve color images (transparencies or color negatives) will create these three separation negatives in a conventional darkroom, as black/white films will long outlast any color original. Bob Werre BobWphoto.com --- In STMFC@..., "SMMW" <jimking3@...> wrote: > > Color film was around in the mid to late 1930s. Witness "Gone With The > Wind" and "The Wizard of Oz", both shot in the late 30s. There is a lot of > color WWII film now surfacing from archives and personal collections, much > of it has made it to DVD and/or the History Channel. Color slide film was a > very slow ASA 8 when it came out, then went to 10, then to 25 for a long > time. The introduction of Kodachrome 64 was a huge advancement for > photographers and remained a mainstay for pros until production stopped a > couple years ago. > > > > Jim King > > Smoky Mountain Model Works, Inc. > > Ph. (828) 777-5619 > > <www.smokymountainmodelworks.com> > > > > > > > |
|
Re: Color film
Bill,
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
You are correct, the system lent itself well to the beginnings of the "color cover era". Before that time, and you can look back to some old Kalmbach books for good examples, color images for books were often hand colored with oils rubbed into the print's surface. Other less successful techniques were also used. The benefit of this system was that black/white film was easily processed in house and the negatives turned over to the engravers! The camera in question was designed by Harry Warnecke, who was a shooter for the New York Daily News. So I image they produced a limited run of those beasts. An example of his work (published in a Time/Life series) shows a very young Roy Rogers drawing both six guns in a 1943 shot. Bob Werre BobWphoto.com
--- In STMFC@..., "lnbill" <fgexbill@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: NYC PS-2 covered hopper...
Steve Lucas <stevelucas3@...>
Tony--
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Pardon me, my big fingers should have typed "PS-2". For PS-1 boxcars, I usually prefer the Kadee car, having five of them. Steve Lucas.
--- In STMFC@..., Anthony Thompson <thompson@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
Stokes John
Actually there were a number of lines that used the two word form and some still do today. Most initials use RR, not just R (unless it is RY for railway). My somewhat tongue-in-cheek point was that to be consistent with the box car approach one should also use rail road. But then again, the old quote is "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin or small minds" so while many might like boxcar and flatcar, we also use hopper car and passenger car, or railroad instead of rail road in general use. In the big scheme of things this is a trifle.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
John S. To: STMFC@... From: john.allyn@... Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:19:07 +0000 Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car? With the exception of the Long Island Rail Road, I think that this is a usage that ended before the Civil War. John B. Allyn
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Stokes" <ggstokes@...> To: stmfc@... Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 1:25:44 PM Subject: RE: [STMFC] Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car? Along these lines shouldn't it be "rail road" not "railroad"? John Stokes Bellevue, WA To: STMFC@... From: thompson@... Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:09:20 -0700 Subject: [STMFC] Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car? John Golden wrote: I've often seen both terms in print--"box car" and "boxcar". I have always felt that boxcar was incorrect use of the English language . . . My view, like John's, is that the correct term is "box car," but I recognize the problem of compound adjectives, such as when we talk about the car color, "boxcar red," and the connecting of such terms in that way, with or without a hyphen between them, is commonplace and often avoids confusion. It makes clear that "boxcar" modifies "red." That shouldn't lap over into connected use of the terms when NOT in compound adjective form. But John is right that even in Kalmbach magazines one sees both "boxcar" and flatcar" used. Of course, it was in _Trains_ magazine recently that the F-M locomotive was referred to as a "Trainmaster." Sigh. Tony Thompson Editor, Signature Press, Berkeley, CA 2906 Forest Ave., Berkeley, CA 94705 www.signaturepress.com (510) 540-6538; fax, (510) 540-1937; e-mail, thompson@... Publishers of books on railroad history [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] |
|
Re: Color film
Bill Welch
I was a photographer for The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville from 1976 thru 1987 and remember hearing about a retired staffer who shot most of the Food and Home photos for the paper and used this type of camera. We had a separate department that handled all of the color jobs and they spoke fondly of this system because of the results it produced when it was printed.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Bill Welch
--- In STMFC@..., "gpnrr" <bob@...> wrote:
|
|
Re: Nomenclature - Boxcar or Box Car?
mopacfirst
At least Webster's helps keep the great unwashed on track, assuming they ever look up things in the dictionary. I get so tired of listening to or seeing the word 'flatcar' turned into 'flatbed railcar' or some other generic mumbo-jumbo by persons who wouldn't know a flatcar from a 'sleeper car' or, better yet, a 'dinning car'.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
But, there are also some who think everything with steel wheels is a 'boxcar'. I vote for boxcar and flatcar, maybe hopper car vs. hopper, but definitely stock car and gondola and caboose. Ron Merrick
--- In STMFC@..., water.kresse@... wrote:
|
|