Date   

Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo

Tony Thompson
 

Gregg Mahlkov wrote:
You have taken a Car Service Rule and extrapolated it into a Tariff Rule.
The connection simply was not there between 1921 and 1980.
If you will recall, this topic originated in a discussion of tank cars not having reweigh dates. As for the gallonage issue, a friend who worked at one of the Signal Hill refineries in Long Beach in the late 1950s told me that cars were carefully loaded "shell full," meaning right to the top of the horizontal cylinder, as that was the point defined as the gallons capacity: stenciled on the end of the car. The car capacity then defined the amount of load in the car. Whether the tariff regarded this filled number of gallons as weight or volume doesn't matter; it was loaded to match a gallon figure. There was then no need to weight loaded cars, and he stated that cars from his site, at least, were not weighed.

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


roof walks or running boards

ed_mines
 

A few months ago I visited a web site run by a man who hopped a lot of
freights as a teenager in southern California at the end of the steam
era.

I sent him an e-mail asking if he could remember if wooden running
boards were painted. He replied that he couldn't remember if "cat
walks" were painted.

Ed


Re: check this out

ed_mines
 

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "ed_mines" <ed_mines@y...> wrote:
http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cgi-bin/pquery.exe?CISOROOT1=%........
No cigar!

This is an Ohio based collection of images from the Cleveland Union
Terminal files.

Ed


Re: check this out

Brian Paul Ehni <behni@...>
 

Works great if you remember to copy and paste the whole thing.

It would also help the longer links if you put a "<" in front of them and a
">" behind.
--
Thanks!

Brian Ehni

From: ed_mines <ed_mines@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:53:58 -0000
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: [STMFC] check this out

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cgi-bin/pquery.exe?CISOROOT1=%
2Fcut&CISOOP=adv&CISORESTMP=%2Fqbuild%
2Ftemplate1_comprehensive.html&CISOVIEWTMP=%2Fqbuild%
2Ftemplate2_comprehensive.html&CISOROWS=2&CISOCOLS=4&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEA
RCHALL&CISOBOX1=freight&CISOSTART=33


check this out

ed_mines
 

http://images.ulib.csuohio.edu/cgi-bin/pquery.exe?CISOROOT1=%
2Fcut&CISOOP=adv&CISORESTMP=%2Fqbuild%
2Ftemplate1_comprehensive.html&CISOVIEWTMP=%2Fqbuild%
2Ftemplate2_comprehensive.html&CISOROWS=2&CISOCOLS=4&CISOFIELD1=CISOSEA
RCHALL&CISOBOX1=freight&CISOSTART=33

Hope this works.

Ed


Re: PS-1 Box (was proportions of well-known freight cars)

Brian Termunde
 

Since we are speaking of the PS-1 Box, I have a question, how common were the "Pullman Doors" (I'm putting this in quotation marks as I'm not sure of the 'Official STMFC Term <G> for these doors)?

See:

http://www.blwnscale.com/Atlas%2040%27%20Boxcars.htm

for an N scale example. I've always planned on replacing these doors on the very few cars that I have of this type, but with all the newer and better boxcars out there, I've just about decided to just say no to these old and weary veterans (speaking of which, Happy Veterans Day and/or Remembrance Day to our Vets - Thanks!), and retire them, but thought that I might check in with the experts on this list before I do! Thanks!

Take Care!

Brian R. Termunde
West Jordan, UT
"Ship and Travel the Grand Canyon Line!"

Grand Canyon Railway
Utah District

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@comcast.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:52:41 -0500
Subject: [STMFC] RE: (PS-1 as) proportions of well-known freight cars



Just for the record, that 75,000th PS-1 was built in 1956!

And it was a Cotton Belt car from PS lot 8299. About 1 in 55
PS-1's in 1956 was a 40 foot Cotton Belt car. (Contrast with
C&NW, which bought 9,765 40 foot PS-1's prior to 1960.)

Tim O'Connor





Yahoo! Groups Links


Pennsylvania Railroad 2D-F12 Trucks

pennsyk4
 

I have several questions regarding the Pennsylvania Railroad's 2D-F12
coil/leaf spring combination truck.

1) Is it correct that the 2D-F12 truck employed the same V9306
sideframe as did the ubiquitous 2D-F8?


2) If this is the case, according to Pennsy classification, these
trucks possessed the very same journal dimensions, and differed only
in the manner in which they were sprung?


3) So was the coil/leaf spring combination employed to improve the
characteristic ride quality of the 2D-F8 trucks? One clue is in
Pennsy's truck classification sheets where the spring type is listed
as "Coil Elliptic - Teamed, Non-Harmonic". This implies that the two
springs have sufficiently different characteristic frequency-response
curves so as to interfere with each other destructively. I've
noticed that passenger and tender trucks have more complex variations
on this theme.


4) Was this a common problem with the 2D-F8 (especially on faster
trains)?


5) A related question would be to ask whether or not track joint
spacing was staggered so as to prevent such problems? I have been
told that highway expansion joints are placed at irregular intervals
in order to prevent exciting resonance modes in car suspensions,
though this wasn't on good authority.


Thanks for your responses.

Regards,

Clay


Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo

Gregg Mahlkov <mahlkov@...>
 

Tony and list,

That applies to the reweighing of cars when repaired and has nothing whatsoever to do with the assessment of freight charges.

The ARA and later the AAR never had the authority from the ICC to deal with freight rates and charges, only the individual railroads and their Joint Tariff Bureaus (SFA, TEA-ER, TCFB, WTL, etc.) could publish rates, rules, and charges directly affecting shippers.

You have taken a Car Service Rule and extrapolated it into a Tariff Rule. The connection simply was not there between 1921 and 1980.

Gregg Mahlkov

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Thompson" <thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 11, 2005 11:34 AM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo


Gregg Mahlkov wrote:
I would appreciate some reference to the specific rule or tariff
provision
exempting railroads from the requirement to weigh any freight on which
charges were based on weight.
The Code of Car Service Rules covers reweighing under Rule 11.
Rule 11(c) in 1950 describes the various provisions for timing,
stenciling, etc., with this exception: "(other than tank and live
poultry cars)" and for those cars it was only repairs or alterations of
more than 300 pounds which required the car to be reweighed, and then
only by their owners.

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





Yahoo! Groups Links








CGW PS-2

buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

There's a good builder's photo of a CGW PS-2 in an old RMJ. The car
is a dark color, but the photo is b&w. Were these cars black or some
oxide red color? The car body seems to match the truck color.

Thanks in advance!
Phil Buchwald


Pullman corrugated 4/5 round corner end on CGW box car.

buchwaldfam <duff@...>
 

Clark,

Thanks for the offer.
There's a picture posted in the STMFPH files which shows two of
these round cornered ends. One is on a riveted car. Is this the type
of end which the CGW cars had? The darts extend around the corner.
With the photo in the RMJ article, I'm having trouble telling
that the end is round or square cornered, much less how the darts
wrapped around.

Best regards,
Phil Buchwald

--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "rockroll50401" <cepropst@n...> wrote:

Also, since I'm putting together a CGW car, you gave me some
important information here: "Carbuilder Corrugated Round Corner
Steel Ends". Since I chopped up an old MDC car, the corners are
square.... have to go back and round them off a bit. Bummer. That
means I have to glue on new rivets after all the carving is done.

Best regards,
Phil Buchwald
Phil, would you like a close up of the end corner?
Clark Propst


Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo

Tony Thompson
 

Gregg Mahlkov wrote:
I would appreciate some reference to the specific rule or tariff provision
exempting railroads from the requirement to weigh any freight on which
charges were based on weight.
The Code of Car Service Rules covers reweighing under Rule 11. Rule 11(c) in 1950 describes the various provisions for timing, stenciling, etc., with this exception: "(other than tank and live poultry cars)" and for those cars it was only repairs or alterations of more than 300 pounds which required the car to be reweighed, and then only by their owners.

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: proportions of well-known freight cars - Steel vs. SUF vs. Other Undeframes for Boxcars between 1920 and 1954

Gatwood, Elden <Elden.Gatwood@...>
 

Tim;
Tim;
I just knew you'd respond! Thanks!
Elden,
I guess that I am a sucker.
No, just helpful. I, for one, appreciate it.

Only 720 (0.1% x 720,000) double sheathed boxcars in 1954? I would
think
the number would be quite a bit higher; there were still 1,586 cars with

steel center sills or other composite materials in the "Other Category"
in 1954.

So you believe that the double sheathed cars would outnumber the steel
center sill cars by that date? I never suspected that.

PS-1's had been built for only about 13 years by 1960, and the range of
boxcars "installed between 1947 and 1955 was between 11,390 to 41,264
per year, an average of 24,800 per year. If we assume that there were no

post-1946 boxcars wrecked, that nine year production represented 31 % of

the 12/31/1955 National Boxcar Fleet. I don't have 1956-1960 data on
annual boxcar installations, but, if the 1947-1955 numbers were
extrapolated into 1960, 50% of the US Boxcar Fleet was built since 1947.

That low of a figure (only 50%) also surprises me, I guess due to my
assumption that WW2 had so thoroughly trashed the US freight car fleet
that by 1960, probably 75% (+ or - 10%) of it had been replaced. Just a
bad assumption, I guess.

There are problems, however, with the Boxcar Installation numbers. For
example, the B&M sold 1,300 of their 1923 Design Boxcars built in
1929-30 to two leasing companies who, in turn, leased them back to the
B&M for ten years. On their ICC Reports which Moody's picked up, these
boxcars were considered "new" after the sale/leaseback. Other roads did
the same thing - I have no idea as to the extent, but I suspect that the

50% number extrapolated above is very much on the high side.

That brings up an interesting point, and that is, what were the
survivors that soldiered on into 1960? We know that the PRR was
trashing its X29 fleet, and even a lot of its X31/32/33 fleet. There
really weren't that many numerically large box car classes from before
WW2 other than these that would have made up that 50%. My (bad)
assumption has always been that the PRR was far WORSE in getting its
antiques off the road than were most others. Did most other roads,
then, roster >50% pre-war cars by that date?

One thing that might be confusing me is that the vast majority of kits
(resin) that are "signature" or representative of large classes on many
other roads, that are ALSO made in resin or plastic, and that are also
pre-war cars, do NOT have also seemed to have made it into 1960! The
rebuilds of steel underframed cars, like the NYC/PRR/NKP/WAB rebuilds
with inset sidesills would be an example. They were almost gone by
1960.

What does that indicate about our choices in freight car kits? That
most of them are either early (pre-1920-built) cars that were retired
(at least most of the class) prior to 1960 (like most Westerfield
offerings, and a lot of the Sunshine kits), or that they are post-war
cars representing very common prototypes, like the PS-1, post-war AAR
cars, and similar? Is that neglect on the part of those involved in
doing the research for manufacturers, or just a manufacturer preference?

For those still interested in this subject, what ARE some of this
"under-represented pre-war but not retired by 1960" group? Were they
mostly unique cars built for individual railroads using off-the-shelf,
or home-built parts? Does this indicate a large number of cars (approx.
50% of the national fleet? given 40-yr rule retirements) that was built
between 1920 and 1940. I guess I never understood that.

The point being that PS-1 may have been the largest share of newly
built
boxcars, but that PS-1 number was not that much as part of the national
boxcar fleet in 1960. There were a lot of boxcars operating in 1960
which had been built before 1947, before WW II, and before the
Depression although most, if not all, of the USRA had gone to their
better reward by 1960 - the forty year rule.

I'll address the "popular" and "less popular" boxcar classes issues
sometime later.

Thanks, Tim. I am looking forward to it.

Have a great weekend.

Elden Gatwood


Re: (PS-1 as) proportions of well-known freight cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Just for the record, that 75,000th PS-1 was built in 1956!

And it was a Cotton Belt car from PS lot 8299. About 1 in 55
PS-1's in 1956 was a 40 foot Cotton Belt car. (Contrast with
C&NW, which bought 9,765 40 foot PS-1's prior to 1960.)

Tim O'Connor


Re: proportions of well-known freight cars

Tim O'Connor
 

Elden wrote

Year Total All-Steel SUF "Other"
1954 719,918 81.7% 18.1% 0.2%

I am astounded by the presence of 18.1% steel underframed (and
presumably wooden sheathed) cars in 1954! I would have figured
it to be far less.

Elden,

There were many thousands in service well into the late 1960's.
The GN, NP, C&NW and others bought many modern composite cars in
the late 30's and 1940's (some barely 10 years old in 1954). Also
there were thousands of very viable cars built in the 1920's
that were still around in the 1950's into the 1960's.

For example, NP lists 984 "steel underframe" War Emergency cars
in the 1959 ORER. A quick scan of the NP's 1959 roster shows at
least 5,000 / closer to 6,000 "steel underframe" box cars in
service. That means for every 15 PS-1's on a 1959 era layout
there might have to be 1 NP SUF box car! (Unfortunately there
are not kits for all of the NP classes.) SP also had hundreds
of un-rebuilt SUF box cars in 1959.

I do agree with you Elden that 1950's modelers generally do not
have enough wood sheathed box cars on their layouts. Thankfully
the resin car makers have been working to rectify this!

Tim O'Connor


Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo

Gregg Mahlkov <mahlkov@...>
 

Tony and list,

I would appreciate some reference to the specific rule or tariff provision exempting railroads from the requirement to weigh any freight on which charges were based on weight. I've looked through and occasionally had to use many rate tariffs dating from the 1920's and 1930's and do not recall ever seeing such a provision.

Gregg Mahlkov

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Thompson" <thompsonmarytony@sbcglobal.net>
To: <STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:45 PM
Subject: Re: [STMFC] Re: Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo


Gregg Mahlkov wrote:
The railroads have been trying to eliminate scales for most of the past
century. I cannot conceive that the railroads collectively would agree
to
weigh tank cars post 1960 when they had refused to in the previous
century
of doing business. It was required that tank cars be periodically
pressure
tested and were probably reweighed at that time. There would be no
need for
a separate AAR rule concerning reweigh intervals.
Sigh. Would it be too much trouble for you to look at a few
photos or a few regulations from the period before 1960? What you
"cannot conceive" is really not relevant. Railroads did not "refuse" to
weigh tank cars prior to 1960; they were not REQUIRED to. The rules of
the day said so. Your idea that tank cars were "probably" reweighed
(but without restenciling) is ludicrous. If you think otherwise, please
direct me to the clause that exempts tank cars from the rule that all
cars were restenciled with their light weight when reweighed.

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





Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Pullman Standard Ends (was spades clubs Diamonds and hearts)

bierglaeser <bierglaeser@...>
 

OK, I can't resist jumping in here.

The difference between roof walk versus running board and PS-0 end
versus whatever we end up with after this discussion concludes is
this: Running board is defined by the ARA/AAR and the definition can
be found in any Car Builders' Cyc. Pullman's ends are not defined
there.

In my mind, that makes "roof walk" wrong. We have that object
defined in an authoritative source and it is given a name therein.
We ought to use the terms defined in the Cycs to mean what the Cyc
says they mean. After all, isn't that what dictionaries are for?

For things not defined in the Cycs there needs to be some agreement
on a term for everyone to use. In the case of box car ends I don't
think we can look to the railroads or the car builders for a term
simply because both were vague in many cases about their
terminology. I think Ed Hawkins post on this topic - no offense
intended, Ed - argues against his point more effectively than it
argues for his point.

I'll change my mind on this as soon as those arguing against "PS-O"
cease referring to all doors manufactured by Youngstown and
successors as Youngstown doors and begin referring to Youngstown
doors by the design as identified by the drawing number.

Now I'm ducking back into my foxhole.

Gene Green
Out in the West Texas Town of El Paso


--- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, Tony Thompson <thompsonmarytony@s...>
wrote:

Andy Carlson wrote:
If we can call the PS-1 cars as having "PS-1" Ends,
how about calling the socalled "PS-0" end the PS
Interim end? (Interim, between the Dreadnaught and
production PS-1 ends) I, of course, would probably
prefer the "PS-0" simply because we all know what that
means.
I don't know the best term for the "PS-1 end" myself. It
might
be called something like a "carbuilder's end, 1948-1960" or
something
like that, to differentiate by era. IMO, the "PS-0" is imaginary.

And what is so wrong with "Roof Walks".
Nothing. Call it what you want. But if you read the
professional railroad or standards literature, you will search in
vain
for the term "roof walk." Why use a term which isn't the industrial
term? Why get confused when the standard said "running boards to be
materials other than wood?"
Incidentally, there are those grumbling about the term
"triple valve," which of course was once quite valid, but really
does
not apply to modern brakes. Obviously the old term "carried over"
to
modern brake valves, but at least it's a "real" railroad term. The
old
literature is full of that term.

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@s...
Publishers of books on railroad history


Re: Routing of loaded and empty private cars

Montford Switzer <ZOE@...>
 

Gregg:

I've not seen this entire thread, but a 95% loaded mile factor rings a
bell here. I doubt they could do it unless your subsequent load(s) are
compatible and the deadheads are really that short both of which do not
seem likely. You would more likely have to factor in additional
deadhead miles to a tank cleaning facility and a subsequent deadhead to
the next load.

Petroleum reloads without cleaning were (are) common, but in the
chemical trade I would expect the cars to be dedicated which means a 50%
plus deadhead factor.

Mont Switzer

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Gregg Mahlkov
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:52 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Routing of loaded and empty private cars

List,

I did not fully answer Tim O'Connor's question about the routing of
loaded and empty tanks car. The loaded routing was subject to the routes
published in connection with the underlying tariff rates, which in the
era of this list were generally open routed, subject only to Agency
routing guides. But remember, the 105% rule applied to each railroad, so
empties generally moved in reverse of the loads.

A smart shipper with compatible commodities could establish three, four,
and more cornered movements where cars moved up to 95 percent loaded
miles. A car loaded at A and sent 500 miles to B is then sent 50 miles
to C, where it is loaded to D, 400 miles away. Since D is only 100 miles
from A, the shipper gets reimbursed for 900 loaded miles and only 150
miles move free. Say he does this 8 times. He can then ship the car
empty 1200 miles if the same railroads are involved. The shippers with
large tank car fleets used to have large traffic departments to figure
this sort of stuff out.

The Private Car Mileage Tariff was RPS 6007-series when I retired - I
don't recall the letter suffix.

Gregg Mahlkov







Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: Routing of loaded and empty private cars

Montford Switzer <ZOE@...>
 

Gregg:

I've not seen this entire thread, but a 95% loaded mile factor rings a
bell here. I doubt they could do it unless your subsequent load(s) are
compatible and the deadheads are really that short both of which do not
seem likely. You would more likely have to factor in additional
deadhead miles to a tank cleaning facility and a subsequent deadhead to
the next load.

Petroleum reloads without cleaning were (are) common, but in the
chemical trade I would expect the cars to be dedicated which means a 50%
plus deadhead factor.

Mont Switzer

-----Original Message-----
From: STMFC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
Gregg Mahlkov
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:52 PM
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [STMFC] Routing of loaded and empty private cars

List,

I did not fully answer Tim O'Connor's question about the routing of
loaded and empty tanks car. The loaded routing was subject to the routes
published in connection with the underlying tariff rates, which in the
era of this list were generally open routed, subject only to Agency
routing guides. But remember, the 105% rule applied to each railroad, so
empties generally moved in reverse of the loads.

A smart shipper with compatible commodities could establish three, four,
and more cornered movements where cars moved up to 95 percent loaded
miles. A car loaded at A and sent 500 miles to B is then sent 50 miles
to C, where it is loaded to D, 400 miles away. Since D is only 100 miles
from A, the shipper gets reimbursed for 900 loaded miles and only 150
miles move free. Say he does this 8 times. He can then ship the car
empty 1200 miles if the same railroads are involved. The shippers with
large tank car fleets used to have large traffic departments to figure
this sort of stuff out.

The Private Car Mileage Tariff was RPS 6007-series when I retired - I
don't recall the letter suffix.

Gregg Mahlkov







Yahoo! Groups Links


Re: tariffs (was Mobil Gas Tank Car Photo)

Thomas M. Olsen <tmolsen@...>
 

Tim,

Thanks for the recap on the history on the WEOX reporting marks. That
gives us a leg up towards the date.

Tom Olsen
Newark, Delaware, 19711-7479

Tim Gilbert wrote:

timboconnor@comcast.net wrote:



Tony

Really? I thought that private cars were just billed by mileage...
empty or loaded. Not so?


Shippers (or Consignees) paid the railroad for the haul of commodities
which was usually based on hundred weights as per a published tariff.

The Railroads paid the Car Owners mileage when the car was loaded and
empty up to the amount of loaded car miles. If empty car miles exceeded
loaded car miles, the railroads did not have to pay the private car
owners for the surplus empty car miles. The calculation was done
monthly, and the loaded car miles and empty car miles were aggregated
for all cars of that private car owner running on a specific railroad.
Thus if car ABCX #123 ran 100 loaded miles, and 120 miles in a month,
the railroads would only pay mileage on 200 miles. If ABCX had another
car #456 operating in the same month which ran a total of 100 miles
loaded, and 70 cars empty, the RR would have to pay mileage on 390 miles
(200 loaded and 190 empty for the two cars). In the 1970's or 1980's,
the requirement to have railroads pay the private car owner for empty
car miles was dropped.

The car owner would have the final say on the routing of the car, but
that routing was governed by a "Routing Guide" in which the division of
revenue of the commodity paid by the shipper (or consignee) among the
carriers had been agreed upon.

Many cars were leased to a shipper (or consignee) for which the shipper
paid a rental per day/month/year depending upon the terms of the lease.
That lease payment paid by the shipper could be reduced up to the amount
of the lease by the mileage earnings. Any surplus mileage earnings were
not set off against the lease, because that payments for that surplus
would constitute a "rebate" - a dirty word from XIXth Century Railroading.

For more information on the subject, please refer to pages 33-35 of
Epstein's GATX - A HISTORY OF THE GENERAL AMERICAN TRANSPORTATION
CORPORATION (1948) - used copies available at http://www.bookfinder.com
for around $15.00.

The lessee could specify a specific route only with the permission of
the car owner. Cars did not have to return back too their originating
point, but could be routed to another point entirely.

Hope this helps, Tim Gilbert





Yahoo! Groups Links








Re: Refrigerator Cars

Steve Sandifer <jssand@...>
 

Send me some photos and prototype accuracy info and I will gladly add pages.
______________
J. Stephen (Steve) Sandifer
mailto:steve.sandifer@swcentral.org
Home: 12027 Mulholland Drive, Meadows Place, TX 77477, 281-568-9918
Office: Southwest Central Church of Christ, 4011 W. Bellfort, Houston, TX 77025, 713-667-9417

----- Original Message -----
From: timboconnor@comcast.net
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:36 AM
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Refrigerator Cars


Steve missed the Accurail reefer (BREX/etc), the Terry Wegmann reefers (PFE),
and Overland brass SFRD reefers (several 50 foot cars) as well. And of course
bunches of resin reefers that would have appeared often on the Santa Fe.

Tim O.


> Steve,
> I just perused the referenced refer portion of your great site again
> when you reminded me of it. You might want to add the Tichy reefer to
> your list of prototype models. Yeah, I know, Its PFE not SFRD. But ice
> is ice ;-)


SPONSORED LINKS Worldwide travel insurance Travel trailer insurance International travel insurance
Travel insurance usa Travel medical insurance Csa travel insurance


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

a.. Visit your group "STMFC" on the web.

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
STMFC-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


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

134881 - 134900 of 182518