|
Atlas HO Meat Reefer Reservations
Bill Welch
Among the several items Atlas is taking reservations for are their three styles of meat reefers: https://mycaboose.com/new-releases/atlas-ho-rolling-stock-summer-advanced-reservations?mc_cid=e5cbde1b3e&mc_eid=fef507ff99&page=1&utm_campaign=e5cbde1b3e-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_03_09_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Caboose+Newsletter&utm_term=0_907397b93c-e5cbde1b3e-100264421
I am going to reserve one or two of the Truss Rod types: Part #150-20001680 I was unaware they had two different styles or types w/o Truss Rods: —36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 1 Part #150-20001678
—36' Wood Refrigerator Car Undecorated Body Style 2 Part #150-20001679
|
|
|
|
Re: WP Dispatch Service [was Less Than Carload Shipments]
Garth Groff <sarahsan@...>
Fred,
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Walthers did offer the Merchandise Service decals up into the 1970s. Even if you could find some, Walthers decals that old have a bad habit of going to pieces when soaked. Yours Aye, Garth Groff
On 8/7/19 2:39 AM, Fred Jansz wrote:
Hi Garth,
|
|
|
|
Re: WP Dispatch Service [was Less Than Carload Shipments]
Fred Jansz
Hi Garth,
You are right no manufacturer offered us a correct scale model of the WP Merchandise Dispatch cars. However, Speedwitch offered the 9'6" WP 20001-series cars in resin years ago (kit K114). Unfortunately no decals are available AFAIK. cheers, Fred Jansz
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Tony Thompson
Dennis Storzek wrote: The move to shorter axle lengths isn't because of "CAD design" whatever that is, but simply the result of paying attention to the actual prototype dimensions. When Athearn tooled their plastic trucks decades ago, they adopted the 1.035" axle length because that was NMRA recommended practice, and the overall width of the truck came out to whatever it came out to. . . Thanks for these insights, Dennis. It is certainly evident that newer trucks and wheel sets work with shorter axles. Tony Thompson
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Tony Thompson
Denny Anspach wrote:
This is of course correct. An axle of 1.002-inch length will flop around badly and in fact not roll well in a classic Athearn truck, but is too big for many brass trucks. I would submit that it won't work well in the Accurail Andrews, with its 1.025-inch "best fit" axles, either. Anyone who thinks that ANY chosen wheelset brand fits everything is either inexperienced or cannot tell what rolls well or, perhaps, is not paying attention. Tony Thompson
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Denny and List Members,
Denny wrote: "they... were available with both
wheels insulated"
What is the benefit of having both wheels
insulated? What exactly makes that a useful thing? Is it perhaps so they
can be used in a brass truck and one need not worry about
orientation?
Hoping for illumination on the
subject.
Claus Schlund
|
|
|
|
Re: Photo: PRR Boxcar 26705
Claus Schlund \(HGM\)
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Hi Bob, Garth, and List members,
Notice in the first image linked below (image
number 7385), that there is both a derail and a chock or barrier of some sort to
prevent the boxcar from rolling and fouling the main line.
Claus Schlund
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Dennis Storzek
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 01:33 PM, Denny Anspach wrote:
Doc, I've been finding this whole discussion amusing. The move to shorter axle lengths isn't because of "CAD design" whatever that is, but simply the result of paying attention to the actual prototype dimensions. When Athearn tooled their plastic trucks decades ago, they adopted the 1.035" axle length because that was NMRA recommended practice, and the overall width of the truck came out to whatever it came out to. Red Caboose did something similar years later when they made a truck with the full profile of the journal boxes on the back of the sideframe... only problem was that forced the overall width of the truck to be overly wide, to the point that the journals stick out from under older prototype cars. When I designed the Accurail truck mold, close to thirty years ago now, I tried to keep the overall width of the trucks to scale... and had all sorts of complaints that the common replacement wheels of the day wouldn't fit, so I jumped through some hoops to squeeze a few more thousandths of depth into the scale size journal boxes. Now I'm seeing a general trend toward an axle length that would have fit the original design well. I'm sure this is driven by the desire to make the trucks scale width, and that is good, but the width of the trucks is one of those things that NOBODY was thinking of in years past. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Tom Madden
On Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 02:33 PM, Denny Anspach wrote:
David Lehlbach reports that Tangent's HO high quality replacement wheel sets have an axle length of 1.002” , truly good to know. He also states that it is plainly stated so on their website, which I had previously checked, and repeatedly checked again and could not and am still unable to find (it could be hiding in plain sight, not the first time for me!).The page that David's link leads to https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/product-category/wheelsets/ doesn't show the axle length. But if you click on any of the wheelset products at the bottom of the page, then you'll get to pages that show axle length. Tom Madden
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Denny Anspach <danspachmd@...>
David Lehlbach reports that Tangent's HO high quality replacement wheel sets have an axle length of 1.002” , truly good to know. He also states that it is plainly stated so on their website, which I had previously checked, and repeatedly checked again and could not and am still unable to find (it could be hiding in plain sight, not the first time for me!).
I would gently quibble with the assertion that this relatively short (for the US) axle length of 1.002” is the ideal for general replacement, notwithstanding the fact that they may be superb for Tangent’s own trucks, or for other current high end model trucks (the majority of which probably are OK with their own OEM wheel sets). Replacements imply replacements of existing truck wheel sets of an installed base of model box and passenger cars, the ages of which extend up to a decade or two, or more. As some listers may know, I have been interested in ideal wheelset replacement and maximum truck rollability for some years, during which time I have been keenly aware of all the protean variables that affect best choices in each case. I settled on Reboxx decades ago solely on the available and utility of their incredible variety of 2 mm. axle lengths (that their quality control was extremely high, that they had 0.088” treads and were available with both wheels insulated were welcome but ancillary reasons for choice). For my own curiosity, I have kept records of what I have used over the years, using a serendipitously-even-60 currently-saved Reboxx packaging cards to inform and plot continued usage (720 wheel sets by my count). The choices were all made by measurement on a Rolltester, results attenuated subjectively to minimum axle end-play (i.e., a given truck with too-short axles might precipitously roll off a dead-level surface just by looking at it, but nosing and wobbling side to side when doing so sufficient to presage common routine coupling and height alignment problems, not at all looking good in the process!). I have not included all the IM, Kadee, and Branchline wheel sets also installed additionally). Probably the most ubiquitous trucks used in the RPM freight car modeling community are the Accurail “Bettendorf". Their consistent and reliable maximum rollability/minimum end play axle length choices have varied slightly among molding numbers 1-4, the most common being 1.010”, with 1.025” occasionally. Their superb Andrews trucks benefit consistently with 1.025” axles. As might be expected there is a rough bell shaped curve of usage with axle lengths of l.015” and 1.020” at the apex with 1.010” and 1.025” on steep downslopes. There are slightly more 1.030” axles than 1.005”, and almost no 1.000”. With European and a variety of brass trucks, 0.990” and below to 0.050” have considerable utility, especially the European standard of 0.970”. I still have in hand a broad Reboxx inventory, and a cursory inspection this morning shows that my packs of 1.000” axles have barely been dipped into. Tim O’C opines that trucks roll differently under load than simply light on-test. Only to a very limited degree, I have found this to be true (I fashioned a lump of lead to mount on a single truck to roughly replicate a half-NMRA weight). Some dramatically increased rollability under load, notable the old Lindbergs; while only a few others really bogged down. The overwhelming number demonstrated not a scintilla of difference. Lubrication was only a rare help (confirming once again the late Linn Westcott’s good advice of many decades ago). Dave Parker reports that the IM website currently records axle length for its wheels, which it indeed does. Parker reports a length of 1.060” (WOW!). while the website itself reports 1.006”, consonant with my own measurements, and a definite change from their long held standard axle length of 1.012”. This de facto chang coincided with a reported change in China contractors, but was not publicly reported until Brian Leppart rung the bell. I think that one can judge from this recorded data what axle lengths will best suit her/his fleet, but if only one mass market length was to be chosen, the most bang for the buck would be wheel sets with axle lengths in the 1.010”-1.015” range, with extension to 1.020” as well. BTW, my recorded bell shaped curve of my actual range of useful axle lengths reportedly has closely tracked Reboxx’s own sales spread. Respectfully, Denny Denny S. Anspach, MD Sacramento, CA 95864
|
|
|
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments
np328
The Northern Pacific fitted up 28 prior fully refrigerated cars as half reefer/half dry lading (merchandise). Then in 1951 they converted another 25. The reason given on the 1951 AFE was "They have proven economical in the reduction of ice used and adaptability to the service requirements and it is recommended that 25 additional cars be fitted up." That is 53 cars and to me, that is notable. In 1953, they added more cars. So at least on my railroad, in my 1953 timeframe, LCL traffic is a going thing. I am working to get data and plans about these cars together and in a manner such as to recreate these cars as a model.
Add to this, that the Northern Pacific had the Northern Pacific Transport Co, serving as the last step to many companies dock for delivery. A name not unfamiliar to many on this list, Richard Yaremko has written in my historical societies rag about those operations should someone be moved to read about that further. In that, we here seem to suffer from a vision when trucks are mentioned - in a win/loose manner. Many of our railroads here had some sort of trucking operations or contractual agreements established (well prior to the end of this lists 1960 cut off) that served both the railroads interests and the shippers. And that helped keep LCL alive through this lists time frame. Freight Forwarders are mentioned above. Here is an undiscovered, unwritten source of railroad traffic that is well in need of being noticed. I have researched on and off for years about this trying to get together a critical mass suitable to be presented at CCB or Chicagoland. Acme was one name and there were others. Often (on my road) they had floor space rented in the freight depot in larger locations. That is two industries in one building, and a chance for operationally more switching. Freight forwarder traffic was hot as railroad traffic and I have letters from high up tracking the movements of these cars and fiery telegrams when a car connection was missed. Instructions on manifesting train make up have freight forwarder cars in the top priority of four or five commodities. This was high revenue traffic. And any railroads empty car was fair game to be used. LCL at least for me and my railroad is alive and well in 53, and looks to have continued that way for some time afterward. Jim Dick - St. Paul One thing I do need to add about trucking way back. My father was one of those GI's who after WWII drove a truck (for a trucking company) before using his GI benefits to also go to further formal education. He mentioned that trucks were lucky to make 100 mile turn arounds in a full 12 hour day. He drove a truck from Milwaukee to Chicago, and then if everything went right, might drive one back, within 12 hours. Ninety some miles down, ninety some back in twelve hours. Much different than today. Reading about the Yakima Valley fruit operations in Washington state, the railroads were concerned (in the 50s) about truckers who would bring a load of merchandise east out of Seattle/Tacoma into central Washington state then solicit their services to take a trailer load of fruit back. Competition was on price, not time as shipment by truck was about the same timeframe as railroad reefers took. That the interstates changed things, I do believe. However I can recall going through Montana in the 1970s and finding areas where interstates links had yet to be built. The interstate act was signed in 1956, this list times out in 1960. For the majority of us, interstates are of no concern when conversing about LCL.
|
|
|
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments
Schleigh Mike
Hello Dennis & Group! Down below, Dennis S says the following-- "The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII." Respectfully, I must submit, this is simply wrong. Perhaps you are thinking of some other aspect or detail of the business. The assigned boxcar on the local 'way' freight was very much a part of the railroad scene through the 1950s. No doubt it was in decline but it was still there. I earlier mentioned the E-L and WAG. The earlier ERIE had a well established freight house in their Hornell facility up until the 1963 time I previously mentioned. Its function was to gather in, sort, and ship out the LCL parcels that were processed. Daily, various 'roaming' cars would arrive, be unload and reloaded with routing to take all that 'stuff' in all directions to many destinations. Scheduled east and west bound through freights daily made arrivals and departures there timed around the schedule of the house work. Most movements were intended for those daily fast freights. And too as appropriate, cars were prepared for the departing 'locals' that took the shipments to the on-line stations for local delivery. Every station with an agent would deal with the unloading and ultimate local delivery in their respective locals. Of course, the reverse would occur for outbound shipments. With the WAG after 1956 and before that, the B&O, shipments on or off the connection from Galeton would be done by cars partially loaded as LCL cars being interchanged. The WAG and B&O had on-line cars that would be spotted with each arriving train and the previous car pulled with any freight the agent had taken for shipment. A number of their larger towns received these 'spotted' cars. Back on the ERIE and early E-L, the Hornell operation was coordinated with the expedited shipments coming out of New York City. There many small manufacturing businesses depended on such package shipping service and the ERIE used a freight forwarding company coordinating this work clear out to Chicago. This business was well documented in recent issues of the ELRRHS's publication, "The Diamond." This was not a singular railroad operation. All along the line LCL cars would be handed off to connecting railroads and forwarded. Other RRs participated as necessary and other RRs had their own version of what I have described for the ERIE. This business, including the quaint local service, was definitely headed into oblivion with WWII concluded but it surely survived another 18 or so years with attempts to resuscitate occurring from time to time in various ways. I have no knowledge of anything occurring in the years concluding with the1980 Staggers Act but that is, of course, out of our scope. Regards----Mike Schleigh, Grove City, Penna.
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 11:10:14 AM EDT, Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:
Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment. But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching. I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments
C J Wyatt
I think most of the LCL was gone by the end of the 1960s. I started at N&W in 1974 and I do not recall any mention of LCL services. Also remember, freight forwarders took over some of the business. Jack Wyatt
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 11:10:15 AM EDT, Dennis Storzek <destorzek@...> wrote:
Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment. But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching. I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: CV 41000-41499
Marty McGuirk
Sorry for not responding to this sooner – I’ve gotten out of the habit of keeping up on email on the weekends and we’ve been dealing with some family medical issues and the normal distractions of summer.
Over the years I’ve built a dozen or so more of these – and the various double and single door variants. All the photos in the links below are on my Central Vermont blog – there are other pictures – if you search for “Freight Cars” you should be able to find more of them. A couple of things to note on the F&C kit:.
Now we get to the issue with these kits that comes up whenever we discuss them – the trucks. The cars rode on cast steel ARA U-section trucks with spring planks and Barber lateral motion bolsters equipped with six springs per side frame--a style called "increased spring capacity trucks" by several manufacturers.
https://realstmfc.groups.io/g/main/message/155026
My first item published in a “real” model railroad magazine was a review of this kit (marketed by Steam Shack but produced by Steve Funaro). Just for fun, here’s a photo of that model – warts and all - on Paul Dolkos’ former B&M White Mountain Division http://centralvermontrailway.blogspot.com/2012/12/wordless-wednesday-1.html Hope this helps, Marty McGuirk Gainesville, VA
On August 6, 2019 at 6:15 AM Garth Groff <sarahsan@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments
Dennis Storzek
Nobody has yet to cite a definite end point, so I'll propose 1980, when the Staggers Act allowed the railroads to cancel non-remunerative tariffs without public comment.
But, what aspect of LCL service are we talking about? The traditional operation, where the local freight had an LCL car that delivered to each station as it worked down the line, died with the end of WWII. Highways had improved over the course of the Great Depression due to numerous gov't funded public works projects, and lots of returning GI's used their GI Bill benefits to buy a truck. The ICC had no problem with the railroads contracting with local truckers to provide that "last mile" service to outlying locations, and LCL contracted to just switching scheduled cars to freight houses at major terminals. That part of the business doesn't look any different than any other industrial switching. I recall reading an article in The SOO, the magazine of the Soo Line Historical & Technical Society, a while back, written by the gentleman who had been the Division Superintendent out in North Dakota during the sixties. Shipping choices out in that remote territory were limited, and LCL was still a viable option. The final delivery was by local trucker, who felt he could get better equipment utilization if he had more volume to pick up while making deliveries, so convinced the railroad to institute scheduled cars from Enderlin, ND to several points east. As I recall, the comment was the volume was building until the Penn Central merger in 1968, after which the eastern connections became "unreliable." The scheduled service was dropped within a year. Dennis Storzek
|
|
|
|
Re: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments
Gatwood, Elden J SAD
Gang;
toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
I can only speak to correspondence I have seen on the PRR, but I think many RRs had the same general experience. PRR came on strong with dedicated LCL cars right around 1947/48/49. Several classes were built new or refurbished, with swanky new paint jobs (see attached). The trouble was folks were moving to trucks for LCL-ish freight, it could come to a location nearby, or even at your location, and the upgrade of roads and highways was making it easier to steal traffic from the RRs. Damage claims were high. Pair this with the closure of more and more freight stations to receive LCL, and employees that had no experience with moving cars from one location to another quickly, and you had a losing business line. PRR kept cars in LCL P&L long after they had been re-assigned to general service. A handful soldiered on into the sixties, in truly ghastly P&L. Auto parts were an entirely different story, but that is, as they say, a completely different story. Elden Gatwood
-----Original Message-----
From: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io [mailto:main@RealSTMFC.groups.io] On Behalf Of Schleigh Mike via Groups.Io Sent: Tuesday, August 6, 2019 10:17 AM To: main@RealSTMFC.groups.io Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Re: [RealSTMFC] Less Than Carload Shipments Regarding LCL shipments---- My then two favorite RRs in western New York were the WAG and the E-L (ERIE). The small road depended on the larger with interchange at Wellsville. The E-L ceased sometime in 1963, past our timeframe. Both roads visibly performed this service and it should not be ignored or forgotten in modeling considerations. Regards from Grove City, Penna. Mike Schleigh On Monday, August 5, 2019, 8:07:26 PM EDT, Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io <chiefbobbb=verizon.net@groups.io> wrote: Appreciating that there may still be some less-than-carload business on the rails, when were the railroads substantially out of the LCL business? Thanks. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA
|
|
|
|
Re: Metal Wheels
Schleigh Mike
More points on this topic---- It was mentioned earlier that the 'truing' tool for dressing up the axle pockets in the backs of side frames is useful. And it is. It is also vital for finishing several of the cast-brass and other metal truck kits that have been available over the years. A sub-set of these might be considered the brass trucks on imported cars and tenders. Some of these can be vastly improved carefully using this tool. Further, the many axle lengths offered by ReBox have been absolutely the saving finish to these efforts. Let us hope these various wheel sets remain available. One other point: Using an axle that is too short in the fixed dimension between the respective journals has the tendency to lower the car sitting above. If replacing the functioning axle, measure it and use something equal or close. If you choose one too long, the truck will not roll well. Again, the ReBox choices are VERY helpful. Regards--Mike Schleigh Grove City, Penna.
On Monday, August 5, 2019, 9:21:52 PM EDT, Tim O'Connor <timboconnor@...> wrote:
The Kato ASF trucks David mentions take .950 Reboxx replacement axles. The trucks roll far better with the Reboxx axles too - with a car on top of them! The Reboxx "roll tester" tested only UNLOADED trucks. Performance can be very different under a load. The Kato ASF trucks with factory wheel sets under load did not dazzle. The Tahoe ASF 70-ton trucks under a load are dazzling. Some Atlas trucks have very short axles too. The larger Reboxx sizes were for the TENS OF MILLIONS of Athearn sideframes out there. :-) Tim O'Connor On 8/5/2019 6:37 PM, Tangent Scale Models via Groups.Io wrote: Denny S. Anspach, MD wrote: "I note that neither Tangent and Rapido (nor Intermountain for that matter) publish axle dimensions, so one has no idea -none, nada, zip- whether they are 0.990” or 1.020”, a vast difference that commonly presages vast and critical differences in expected or desired performance..." Denny, as has been stated on this list in the past, Tangent Scale Models does indeed disclose the axle lengths for our wheels on our website and has since 2008 when we first offered our fine wheels for sale. Click on any one of the links for the wheels here and the axle length is disclosed: https://www.tangentscalemodels.com/product-category/wheelsets/ As you will see, the Tangent 33" wheels have a 1.002" length which is a highly useful length for most normal applications beyond those found in Tangent trucks. We appreciate the kind comments on this list in recent days about our wheelsets. The "oddball" lengths that require Reboxx have really fallen by the wayside in recent years due to more consistent, modern CAD-based truck designs found on today's trucks. Today's trucks generally look and operate better than the trucks that the Reboxx line was designed for, meaning you can get significant mileage from the replacement weelsets from brands like Tangent, especially with the opportunity to purchase 100-count packages. Best wishes, David Lehlbach Tangent Scale Models (who recently used Reboxx wheels in KATO trucks on a personal model, which have a very different standard but which also date from the 1990s) -- Tim O'Connor Sterling, Massachusetts
|
|
|
|
Re: Less Than Carload Shipments
Schleigh Mike
Regarding LCL shipments---- My then two favorite RRs in western New York were the WAG and the E-L (ERIE). The small road depended on the larger with interchange at Wellsville. The E-L ceased sometime in 1963, past our timeframe. Both roads visibly performed this service and it should not be ignored or forgotten in modeling considerations. Regards from Grove City, Penna. Mike Schleigh
On Monday, August 5, 2019, 8:07:26 PM EDT, Bob Chaparro via Groups.Io <chiefbobbb@...> wrote:
Appreciating that there may still be some less-than-carload business on the rails, when were the railroads substantially out of the LCL business? Thanks. Bob Chaparro Hemet, CA
|
|
|
|
Re: Monon
Schleigh Mike
Hello Group! Not to be too detailed but I think the [27" GRAY] might be misleading. GRAY is obvious but I believe that 27" refers to the vertical height of that gray stripe. It is not some reference number to a particular paint. Still helpful information. Regards from Mike Schleigh in Summery Grove City in western Penna.
On Tuesday, August 6, 2019, 9:15:19 AM EDT, Michael Aufderheide <MononInMonon@...> wrote:
<<Here's the painting diagram for the 50' DD and says 27" GRAY Chad Boas>> Bingo! Chad, you've got all the good stuff! :>) Mike
|
|
|
|
Re: Less Than Carload Shipments
I did ship a box containing a heavy roundhouse light from Rock Ford, Colorado, to Rosslyn, Virginia, by LCL (ATSF & PRR) some time in the mid/late 1960's. It took at least a month to get there, and I suspect it went all the way by truck. There were agents at both stations, but I didn't see anything else in either freight house.
Tom
|
|
|
