I would point out to the members that critical comments...or praise...about
a railroad or group of railroads is NOT prohibited on this group. Thus, if I
choose to comment about the obvious fact that UP was the most advanced
railroad regarding frt cars during the steam era [ <g> ] I am permitted to
do such. The rules of the group are quite clear, however, that personal
attacks are NOT permitted. Thus, if someone takes issue with my evaluation
of UP frt cars they are free to do so. They are NOT permitted to take
personal attacks at me [ or any member ], however, because of my view. Nor
am I allowed to personally assault someone that might believe some unamed
eastern RR was superior to the UP [ as unlikely as that might be <g> ].

Richard Hendrickson's comment:

"...where forthright expressions of disagreement are neither intended
nor interpreted as personal attacks".

is right on the money. How else are we going to communicate info that others
might not find agreeable? Again, as I have stated before, I am open to
receiving views on this subject but I prefer to do it off group.

Thank you.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner

Mike Brock wrote:
Thus, if I choose to comment about the obvious fact that UP was the most
advanced
railroad regarding frt cars during the steam era [ <g> ] I am permitted to
do such.
Well, they certainly knew how to convert a rather standard box car into one
that would be difficult to model accurately 60 years in the future without
resorting to resin (alternate center riveting). Conspiracy? Perhaps the
engineers were intent on creating future X-Files fodder.
What was the purpose of ACR anyway? Did the UP have additional bracing in
the car and if so for what purpose?
Kevin Lafferty
Modeling the UP in '53.

Mike Brock wrote:
Thus, if I choose to comment about the obvious fact that UP was the most
advanced
railroad regarding frt cars during the steam era [ <g> ] I am permitted to
do such.
Well, they certainly knew how to convert a rather standard box car into one
that would be difficult to model accurately 60 years in the future without
resorting to resin (alternate center riveting). Conspiracy? Perhaps the
engineers were intent on creating future X-Files fodder.
What was the purpose of ACR anyway? Did the UP have additional bracing in
the car and if so for what purpose?

Yes, they did, and the purpose was enable the car to be built with somewhat
thinner (and therefore lighter) steel side sheathing. UP was at the
forefront of research on reducing box car weight, as dead weight consumed
fuel and water, whether the car was loaded or empty, without generating any
revenue. Other RRs tried the same approach (e.g., SP, SSW) but quickly
abandoned it, so it can't have made much of a difference.

Richard H. Hendrickson
Ashland, Oregon 97520