ADMIN: Re: Re: Combine Cars attached to Freight trains


Mike Brock <brockm@...>
 

Paul Hillman writes:



Before Mike gets mad about an OT passenger car subject;.........since combination-cars carried LCL, etc., freight, wouldn't they be considered as being, at least, a pseudo freight-car?
First, Mike seldom gets mad. Second, Mike does have to maintain order and the way he does that is to ensure that the group's rules are followed. Third, same Mike ruled that headend cars [ those carrying mail, baggage and whatever OTHER than non RR employee people { hence, cabooses are considered as frt cars } ] were within scope of the STMFC. A combine carries both stuff and people and, therefore, part of it is technically out of scope. Not wishing to see such nice looking cars cut in half so to speak, they are now decreed as within scope.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner


jaley <jaley@...>
 

On Jun 14, 1:33pm, Mike Brock wrote:
Subject: ADMIN: Re: [STMFC] Re: Combine Cars attached to Freight trains
Third, same Mike ruled that headend cars [ those carrying mail, baggage
and
whatever OTHER than non RR employee people { hence, cabooses are
considered
as frt cars } ] were within scope of the STMFC.
So, baggage-dorms anyone? I bought from Laser Horizons a very nice set of
car sides for a UP baggage-dorm for my City of St. Louis.

:-)


Regards,

-Jeff

--
Jeff Aley jaley@pcocd2.intel.com
DPG Chipsets Product Engineering
Intel Corporation, Folsom, CA
(916) 356-3533


Paul Hillman
 

OK Mike, I should have used the word "concerned" instead of "mad". But,.........glad about your Admin.-decision.

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock<mailto:brockm@brevard.net>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:33 PM
Subject: ADMIN: Re: [STMFC] Re: Combine Cars attached to Freight trains


Paul Hillman writes:



> Before Mike gets mad about an OT passenger car subject;.........since
> combination-cars carried LCL, etc., freight, wouldn't they be considered
> as being, at least, a pseudo freight-car?

First, Mike seldom gets mad. Second, Mike does have to maintain order and
the way he does that is to ensure that the group's rules are followed.
Third, same Mike ruled that headend cars [ those carrying mail, baggage and
whatever OTHER than non RR employee people { hence, cabooses are considered
as frt cars } ] were within scope of the STMFC. A combine carries both stuff
and people and, therefore, part of it is technically out of scope. Not
wishing to see such nice looking cars cut in half so to speak, they are now
decreed as within scope.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner






Yahoo! Groups Links


Jared Harper <harper-brown@...>
 

Oh? I thought you were using "mad" as my Irish friends do as
in "crazy" or "insane." That might fit Mike in some cases.

Jared Harper
Athens, GA

-
-- In STMFC@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Hillman" <chris_hillman@m...>


wrote:
OK Mike, I should have used the word "concerned" instead of "mad".
But,.........glad about your Admin.-decision.

Paul Hillman

----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Brock<mailto:brockm@b...>
To: STMFC@yahoogroups.com<mailto:STMFC@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:33 PM
Subject: ADMIN: Re: [STMFC] Re: Combine Cars attached to Freight
trains


Paul Hillman writes:



> Before Mike gets mad about an OT passenger car
subject;.........since
> combination-cars carried LCL, etc., freight, wouldn't they be
considered
> as being, at least, a pseudo freight-car?

First, Mike seldom gets mad. Second, Mike does have to maintain
order and
the way he does that is to ensure that the group's rules are
followed.
Third, same Mike ruled that headend cars [ those carrying mail,
baggage and
whatever OTHER than non RR employee people { hence, cabooses are
considered
as frt cars } ] were within scope of the STMFC. A combine carries
both stuff
and people and, therefore, part of it is technically out of
scope. Not
wishing to see such nice looking cars cut in half so to speak,
they are now
decreed as within scope.

Mike Brock
STMFC Owner






Yahoo! Groups Links