Date   

Re: USRA SS boxcars

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Benjamin Scanlon wrote:

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work
to look like anything american.
I'd kinda disagree there.

As the model is, apart from the ladders (which are disappointing) and the
trucks (not entirely sure why Nikolai opted to put arch bars in the kit,
but), it's pretty decently accurate for Canadian National 464000-464999
and 500500-503499 series cars, for Algoma Central 3101-3200 series cars,
and for Rutland's single car #7999 (which was an ex-CN car). Though true,
those are Canadian and not American, but that still counts as North
American railroading.

Then, there may be some minor dimensional differences, it wouldn't take
*too* much work to make a composite-ended B-50-13 or B-50-14 using the
RailTT model. And SP and family had lots of those, and pretty much anyone
modelling within the scope of this list can easily justify having one or
several of these.

True, it would take rather more work to make a good representation of a
true USRA car out of it (the simplest way would probably be to use the old
Christoph 5/5/5 ends and Gold Coast's 40' underframe), but even that is
certainly doable, and the quality of the model is quite good (I'm thinking
here specifically of the planks - the wood effect is very sharp), so I
still think it's a very useful addition to what we have available in TT
scale, and certainly isn't something to be discounted at all.

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jan 5, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Brad Andonian <cereshill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Rich,

The USRA model is Pac Ltd 100 Single sheathed outside braced. USRA 40'


The UP car is at work; cannot check today. I believe that i have confused you guys---I have two cars that I am inquiring about.

Per the listing I have for Pac Ltd:

The UP car was Pac Ltd Pl-3100
* I have notes that is it UP #182500 B-50-18. I am wishing to confirm this is correct.
That's easy to determine, Brad. The single B-50-18 class car was 13'10-1/2" from rails to the top of the running board, while several thousand later UP steel sheathed AAR box cars (classes B-50-19. B-50-21, B-50-24, B-50-27) were 14'7-1/2" - a 9" difference that's easily measured in O scale.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Benjamin Hom
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
"What I was trying to say was, that using the model available from
RailTT (which is by rights a model of CN 500500-503499 series cars), a
presentable model of a USRA SS car could be made - swap out the
fishbelly-silled underframe, change the ends, and you've got a
reasonable model that is considerably closer to accurate than just
slapping decals on the model as-is and calling it a model of an X26."

But as I pointed out at the beginning of the thread, you seriously
muddied the waters by not pointing out the differences between the
pressed steel truss members of the true USRA SS boxcar and the
Z-section truss members of the other prototypes.


"Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a
different definition of "different" than the average person,
including the average model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get
into analysing the more minute details, the easier it is to lose
sight of the fact that to an untrained (or even an in-training) eye,
a 1937 car is pretty hard to distinguish from a 1944 car."

"Minute" details are anything but. The differences between ends,
roofs, doors, car height, and centersills may be subtle, but they are
defintely there, and are especially noticeable in context. Rolling
stock models really don't exist in a vacuum - they exist in the
greater whole of a layout, and to really capture the look of the
steam to diesel transition era, you have to capture these
differences. Most modelers don't take a completely scientific
approach towards this, but the majority of modelers instinctively
know when something looks right for a given era (McClleland's V&O,
even thirty years ago, is a great example).


Ben Hom


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:

Well, Frank, here's what you DID say: "RailTT's model is the CN
version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill". I'm
sorry, "clone" does not mean "sort of the same general appearance." I
understand your point, that you are identifying GENERAL similarities,
but in that context, the word "clone" (your word) is entirely
inappropriate. Otherwise you foster FURTHER confusion among those
reading the list.
That's a fair point. I *did* say that... because that's what I understood
the word to mean, in my previous encounters with it.

What, then, *is* an appropriate, but nevertheless "catch-all", word/phrase?


Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different
definition of "different" than the average person, including the average
model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more
minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an
untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to
distinguish from a 1944 car.
Quite true, but adding to the confusion by NOT distinguishing
among similar but DIFFERENT cars does not help the problem. You're
right that this list tends to the sophisticated side of freight
car information. But I believe the way to move those "untrained
eyes" forward is to give them the RIGHT information and explain
why, not to gloss over differences and, in effect, say that
various 40-foot single-sheathed cars are "pretty similar" or
"kinda all the same."
This is also a very fair point.

However - to try to defend myself a little bit - I'd like to put it into a
bit of context.

The point of the big descriptive list I made was, "this is the model we
have available - let's see what we can do with it", and from there I went
on to describe what the model is accurate for as-is, and then what can be
done with it with modifications, pointing out the modifications that would
be needed to make an XY&Z RR 1000-1999 series car.

The way I presented this info, I tried to do it TT-specific, and assuming
no detailed knowledge of the subject (beyond the basic "immediately
obvious" things, e.g. Howe truss vs Pratt truss being 'obviously
different'), and I tried to keep it informative without being overly
verbose or going too far into technical language that'd make it difficult
to read for an outsider. Kinda like how if you're writing about, say,
English grammar, if you're writing for a general audience, you have to
write differently than if you're writing a paper for a peer-reviewed
journal.

In a summary form, my premise was "this is a group of cars that is broadly
similar in appearance; here is how they differ from each other".

I agree with you that the details are important - all the details. But I
also think it's better to make introductions using broad, general terms.
If I meet someone just getting into the hobby, just starting to learn
about the basic differences between various boxcars (and I don't think I'm
too far wrong in saying that for the bulk of hobbyists, the differences
between a '37 car and a '44 car or between a USRA SS car and a B-50-14
aren't nearly as important (or as noticeable) as the difference between a
'37 car and a B-50-14), I've found that you often even have to point out
the most glaring difference between a USRA SS car and a War Emergency
boxcar (namely the truss arrangement).

So, in my experience, I find it more effective to use generalisations
first, whether the subject is freight cars or grammar; better first for
the learner to become comfortable with regular verbs (including mistakes
they will make trying to apply regular forms to irregular verbs), before
starting into irregular verbs and how they behave, than to give them a
daunting pile of information that may actually make it more difficult to
sort through. That's what I tried to do - but of course, that's not to say
I necessarily succeeded.

Talking about this makes me curious now, as to how the rest of you handle
this question. How do you start explaining things to someone who is
interested in modelling accurately, but essentially completely unversed in
the various details of freight cars?

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jan 5, 2013, at 2:36 PM, lnbill <fgexbill@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
The Clinchfield's 50-ton SS USRA cars also survived as built, albeit w/AB brake conversion, into the 1950s with CC&O reporting marks.
Bill, I was just citing examples, not trying to compile a complete list. Other (smaller) RRs whose USRA 50 ton cars also survived for a long time as built, IIRC, included RF&P, MEC, CNJ. But my point remains that it's impossible to say for sure without knowing the date being modeled.


Richard Hendrickson


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Benjamin Scanlon
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Frank Valoczy" wrote:

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:


Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?
much of my data is from frank's postings on the TTnut list, but the confusion re non existent west point route USRA boxcars is down to me generalising. i meant georgia RR cars.

i am interested in the war emergency cars too, but no confusion there, i've realised they are different. my source of info on those is the sunshine data sheets for their kits. i would like to know more, particularly about the georgia/WPR war emergency cars which i understand were part of a run of 10' IH cars done for south eastern RRs, rather than the 10'6" of most others.

on TTnut i think there has been a bit of confusing ACF 8'6" IH howe truss cars in particular, with fowler clones.

i do not think the gold coast fowler clone boxcar is any kind of substitute for these cars, really. inside height is about 6" lower and the roof pitch is too shallow, which combine to create quite a different look.

frank has identified a couple of other cars from MONON and MILW as fowler clones, and they look more like the gold coast car.

as for the railTT 'USRA' car, it sounds like it's going to take some work to look like anything american.

if there were a primer on US boxcars and differences between them, i'd be interested. i do rely rather a lot on what i find on the internet, and can't find much in the way of plans or diagrams at all.

regards, ben


UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Brad Andonian wrote:
The UP car was Pac Ltd Pl-3100
* I have notes that is it UP #182500 B-50-18. I am wishing to confirm this is correct.
That's the right car number. UP owned just ONE of these cars and that's the one. Your call, of course, but I believe that to model rarities just complicates the problem of creating reality in modeling.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


HO Barber 70 Ton Trucks

 

After a wait of several years, I am offering the Red Caboose 70 Ton truck to the group at $3.90/pair without wheel sets. I do have wheels sets available ( code 88 only )@ $2.75 extra/pair of trucks. Postage will be added and for Paypay, their extra fees will be added.

These trucks were originally done for the RC SP F-70-7 flatcar and other SP cars used these trucks also, although spring packs varied on some. As Richard Hendrickson noted:"the Barber S-2 was one of the two truck designs that were widely used from the end of WW II through the '50s (the other being the ASF A-3), so the 70 ton Barber S-2 was applied to many cars built for many different railroads, chiefly (but not exclusively) flat cars, mill gondolas, large hoppers, and covered hoppers. Later in the '50s, they were also applied to a growing number of 70 ton box, auto, insulated box, and mechanical refrigerator cars. As Ron Merrick observes, spring package arrangements varied".

Andy Carlson offered these trucks recently but he is sold out and I have a limited # of these to sell. If you are interested or have questions, contact me OFF LIST at <espeefan@aceweb.com>. Thanks.

Dan Smith


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Brad Andonian
 

Rich,
 
The USRA model is Pac Ltd 100 Single sheathed outside braced. USRA 40'
 
 
The UP car is at work; cannot check today.    I believe that i have confused you guys---I have two cars that I am inquiring about.
 
Per the listing I have for Pac Ltd:
 
The UP car was Pac Ltd Pl-3100
* I have notes that is it UP #182500  B-50-18.     I am wishing to confirm this is correct.
 
 
Thanks,
Brad Andonian


________________________________
From: Richard Yoder <oscale48@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, January 5, 2013 2:50 PM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions


 

What number is on the Box?
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com [mailto:mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
cereshill
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 4:59 PM
To: mailto:STMFC%40yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car
decal questions

Gentlemen,

I have a Pac Limited USRA single sheathed outside braced model I need
appropriate road names for as well as clarification on the Pac Ltd UP box
car.

Is the UP model the same as the image in ted culotta's ARA 1932 box car book
[reference page 214]?

Photo is by Mr. Hendrickson---please chime in sir!

Many thanks from the chilly nw

Brad Andonian

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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
I also did not say anywhere above that the USRA SS cars had fishbelly centre sills! But they nevertheless do look pretty similar to the B-50-14 or the CN series mentioned above.
Well, Frank, here's what you DID say: "RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill". I'm sorry, "clone" does not mean "sort of the same general appearance." I understand your point, that you are identifying GENERAL similarities, but in that context, the word "clone" (your word) is entirely inappropriate. Otherwise you foster FURTHER confusion among those reading the list.

Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different definition of "different" than the average person, including the average model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to distinguish from a 1944 car.
Quite true, but adding to the confusion by NOT distinguishing among similar but DIFFERENT cars does not help the problem. You're right that this list tends to the sophisticated side of freight car information. But I believe the way to move those "untrained eyes" forward is to give them the RIGHT information and explain why, not to gloss over differences and, in effect, say that various 40-foot single-sheathed cars are "pretty similar" or "kinda all the same."

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Richard Hendrickson wrote:

Appropriate road names for what date? I assume the Pacific Limited model represents the USRA 50 ton single sheathed box cars as built. Some of those cars survived into the early '50s without rebuilding (e.g. Milwaukee, Reading, Southern Pacific) Many others were rebuilt into all steel cars (PMCK&Y) or extensively modified (Pennsylvania RR, Erie) to the point where a model representing the cad as built isn't correct.
Richard is of course right that most railroads rebuilt their USRA cars in later years. That includes SP. All surviving SP USRA box cars were rebuilt in 1949 to an entirely different appearance. A few decrepit ones, not regarded as in sufficiently good condition to rebuild, were assigned to MOW service, but none survived into the 1950s in revenue service.

Since you're citing the image in Ted's book, I assume the model represents a steel sheathed box car, but the Union Pacific owned a lot of those, both built new and rebuilt from older cars. Without more information, that question can't be answered either.
Nope, he cites Ted's 1932 ARA box car book, showing the ONE and only UP car of that design, page 214. This is not remotely like the USRA SS cars.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Rich Yoder
 

What number is on the Box?
Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
cereshill
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 4:59 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car
decal questions

Gentlemen,

I have a Pac Limited USRA single sheathed outside braced model I need
appropriate road names for as well as clarification on the Pac Ltd UP box
car.

Is the UP model the same as the image in ted culotta's ARA 1932 box car book
[reference page 214]?

Photo is by Mr. Hendrickson---please chime in sir!

Many thanks from the chilly nw

Brad Andonian



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

Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Bill Welch
 

The Clinchfield's 50-ton SS USRA cars also survived as built, albeit w/AB brake conversion, into the 1950s with CC&O reporting marks.

Al Westerfield captured the very distinctive stenciling spelling out of "Clinchfield" with his decals

Bill Welch

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Richard Hendrickson wrote:

On Jan 5, 2013, at 1:59 PM, "cereshill" wrote:

Gentlemen,

I have a Pac Limited USRA single sheathed outside braced model I need appropriate road names for….
Appropriate road names for what date? I assume the Pacific Limited model represents the USRA 50 ton single sheathed box cars as built. Some of those cars survived into the early '50s without rebuilding (e.g. Milwaukee, Reading, Southern Pacific) Many others were rebuilt into all steel cars (PMCK&Y) or extensively modified (Pennsylvania RR, Erie) to the point where a model representing the cad as built isn't correct. It's impossible to answer this question without knowing the date being modeled.

Is the UP model the same as the image in ted culotta's ARA 1932 box car book [reference page 214]?

I can't answer that question without seeing the model, or a good image of it, but I doubt it very much. The Union Pacific only owned one box car built to the AAR 1932 specs., B-50-18 class UP 182500. It's highly unlikely that Pat O'Boyle imported models representing a single car.
Since you're citing the image in Ted's book, I assume the model represents a steel sheathed box car, but the Union Pacific owned a lot of those, both built new and rebuilt from older cars. Without more information, that question can't be answered either.

Richard Hendrickson



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


Re: UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Richard Hendrickson
 

On Jan 5, 2013, at 1:59 PM, "cereshill" <cereshill@yahoo.com> wrote:

Gentlemen,

I have a Pac Limited USRA single sheathed outside braced model I need appropriate road names for.
Appropriate road names for what date? I assume the Pacific Limited model represents the USRA 50 ton single sheathed box cars as built. Some of those cars survived into the early '50s without rebuilding (e.g. Milwaukee, Reading, Southern Pacific) Many others were rebuilt into all steel cars (PMCK&Y) or extensively modified (Pennsylvania RR, Erie) to the point where a model representing the cad as built isn't correct. It's impossible to answer this question without knowing the date being modeled.

Is the UP model the same as the image in ted culotta's ARA 1932 box car book [reference page 214]?

I can't answer that question without seeing the model, or a good image of it, but I doubt it very much. The Union Pacific only owned one box car built to the AAR 1932 specs., B-50-18 class UP 182500. It's highly unlikely that Pat O'Boyle imported models representing a single car.
Since you're citing the image in Ted's book, I assume the model represents a steel sheathed box car, but the Union Pacific owned a lot of those, both built new and rebuilt from older cars. Without more information, that question can't be answered either.

Richard Hendrickson


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

Anthony Thompson wrote:
The GA 19300-19449 are not USRA cars, as they are 8 ft. 6 in. high
inside. USRA cars were 9 feet high inside. The GA 19500-19799 cars
have dimensions matching the USRA cars but are all steel by the
1950s. Are these not probably the Georgia all-steel rebuilds of their
USRA cars?
Yes - looking again at the photos, they all appear to be steel-sheathed.


Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked
a lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've
grouped things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort
of thing, a B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put
together - pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work,
a presentable B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT,
better put, the other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of
the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill).
But the USRA SS box cars did not have fishbelly center sills. Those
sills were on the USRA double-sheathed cars.
Thank you, Tony - you illustrated my point about confusion perfectly!

I know that the "actual" USRA SS cars did not have fishbelly centre sills.
But there were copies/clones/choose-your-word - cars that largely look
like USRA SS cars - that *did* have such sills, cars like the B-50-14 and
CN 500500-503499.

I also did not say anywhere above that the USRA SS cars had fishbelly
centre sills! But they nevertheless do look pretty similar to the B-50-14
or the CN series mentioned above.

What I was trying to say was, that using the model available from RailTT
(which is by rights a model of CN 500500-503499 series cars), a
presentable model of a USRA SS car could be made - swap out the
fishbelly-silled underframe, change the ends, and you've got a reasonable
model that is considerably closer to accurate than just slapping decals on
the model as-is and calling it a model of an X26.

Part of the issue may be that those of us on this list have a different
definition of "different" than the average person, including the average
model railway hobbyist, and the deeper we get into analysing the more
minute details, the easier it is to lose sight of the fact that to an
untrained (or even an in-training) eye, a 1937 car is pretty hard to
distinguish from a 1944 car.

All this brings me back to the earlier statement: a B-50-14 is by no means
the same as a USRA SS car, but they sure do look a lot alike.

6 years ago, I didn't know the difference between a USRA SS car and a PS-1
(and I'm not exaggerating) - everyone starts pretty much at zero, and this
is easy to forget when one's been involved with something for many years.

Frank Valoczy
Vancouver, BC


UP box car and USRA single sheathed outside braced box car decal questions

Brad Andonian
 

Gentlemen,

I have a Pac Limited USRA single sheathed outside braced model I need appropriate road names for as well as clarification on the Pac Ltd UP box car.

Is the UP model the same as the image in ted culotta's ARA 1932 box car book [reference page 214]?

Photo is by Mr. Hendrickson---please chime in sir!

Many thanks from the chilly nw

Brad Andonian


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Anthony Thompson <thompson@...>
 

Frank Valoczy wrote:
Also: GA 19500-19799? I've seen some photos of those, and those look to me to definitely by USRA SS cars (5/5/5 ends and all). This would suggest to me that 19300-19449 would also have been USRA cars? Never seen any photos of those, though...
The GA 19300-19449 are not USRA cars, as they are 8 ft. 6 in. high inside. USRA cars were 9 feet high inside. The GA 19500-19799 cars have dimensions matching the USRA cars but are all steel by the 1950s. Are these not probably the Georgia all-steel rebuilds of their USRA cars?

Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked a lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've grouped things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort of thing, a B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put together - pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work, a presentable B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT, better put, the other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone" with the fishbelly centre sill).
But the USRA SS box cars did not have fishbelly center sills. Those sills were on the USRA double-sheathed cars.

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@signaturepress.com
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Atlas HO USRA steel rebuilt box cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Especially considering that a Sunshine model is only slightly more
than that! My days of buying inaccurate, expensive models are over.

Tim O'


The bottom line: should you pay $35 for this model?
Ben Hom


Re: USRA SS boxcars

Frank Valoczy <destron@...>
 

benjaminfrank_hom wrote:


Not entirely true. Georgia did receive USRA SS boxcars (GA 19000-
19299), but A&WP did NOT. Do you have a source that's giving you this
bum gouge?
Also: GA 19500-19799? I've seen some photos of those, and those look to me
to definitely by USRA SS cars (5/5/5 ends and all). This would suggest to
me that 19300-19449 would also have been USRA cars? Never seen any photos
of those, though...

As for A&WP, maybe he's confusing their War Emergency boxcars with USRA
cars? I haven't ever heard of any A&WP USRA cars either, so.

Don't take this personally, but I'm getting the impression that you're
mixing up a lot of prototype information which is causing your
confusion.
Some of the confusion is probably my fault; on the TT forum I've talked a
lot about various freight cars (esp. boxcars). For simplicity I've grouped
things together: to someone new to really looking at this sort of thing, a
B-50-14 looks a lot like a USRA SS boxcar, so those were put together -
pointing out the differences (since I think, with some work, a presentable
B-50-14 can be modelled from a USRA SS model; or, in TT, better put, the
other way around - RailTT's model is the CN version of the USRA SS "clone"
with the fishbelly centre sill). I tried to be as explicit as possible in
pointing all the differences out, but I did have to distil things somewhat
for the sake of brevity and legibility, and that may well lead to some
confusion despite my best attempts at being clear.

That said, if I may be allowed a word in defence of myself regarding the
subject at hand, I never did make any suggestion that the A&WP ever had
any USRA SS boxcars, or clones thereof...

Frank Valoczy
New Westminster, BC


Re: Delano photograph of LCL house in Chicago

devansprr
 

And the trees...

I just dropped someone off at the front entrance to Union Station 3 weeks ago.

Outside of the type of film used, much of the photo could be duplicated today, except that the trees in the park between Union Station and the Capitol are much bigger and would block most of the view of the station from the location of the photo(the photo was taken 1500 feet from the entrance of Union Station and 950 feet from the north end of the Capitol. The plaza wall she is sitting on is still there today - she is sitting just west of the fountain at that location (fountain would be behind the woman). Outside of the trees, I think most of this area in the field-of-view is pretty much unchanged and safe. The same lamp post might even still be there. The Union Station smoke stack is gone - a parking garage now covers the western station tracks behind the station.

If you haven't visited downtown DC in some time, do not think it has been commercialized or over-developed. The "mall" area from Union station to the Lincoln and Jefferson memorials two miles away remains one of the most beautiful city centers in the world (outside of the City's inability to maintain good pavement). Don't miss it.

Sorry for the lack of STMFC content - the nearest STMFC to this location might be in Baltimore - someone just spotted an old PRR X29 (flat ends) being used as a storage building:

From PRR Yahoo Group:

http://p5b4702.rrpicturearchives.net/showPicture.aspx?id=3323673#

Classic X29 rust patterns and old wooden running boards.

If you go to DC, also stop at the B&O museum in Baltimore - lots of STMFC era, and older, content, including IIRC, several M26's.

Dave Evans

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Bill Daniels wrote:

I thought so...


 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA



________________________________
From: MICHAELCALO3403
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 7:44 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Delano photograph of LCL house in Chicago


 
Um....yeah...that's it.....

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Daniels" billinsf@...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 4:33:03 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Delano photograph of LCL house in Chicago

 

Oh, you must mean shoot sheet film (4x5) using Kodachrome???

 
Bill Daniels
San Francisco, CA

________________________________
From: MICHAELCALO3403 michaelcalo3403@... >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Delano photograph of LCL house in Chicago

 

Thanks for the link, Ray - a lot of good pitures there, particularly the PRR ore docks with the Hewlett ("Hulett") ore unloader. 

One picture, though, shows how really old this collection is: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/fsac/item/fsa1992001554/PP/resource/  .  There is NO WAY you could do this today.

Wow.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Ray Breyer" rtbsvrr69@... >
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, January 4, 2013 9:38:46 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Delano photograph of LCL house in Chicago

 

Alternatively, you could go directly to the source for these images, and bypass the thieves at Shorpy completely:
 
http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=railroad&;co=fsac&st=gallery

Ray Breyer
Elgin, IL



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

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




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

67901 - 67920 of 180947